← All Phrases

“Section 132(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 132Section 132(4)5,206 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 132(4) is Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 399), cited in 2,379 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 132(4)

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO
154 ITR 148 · 1985 · Supreme Court
741
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal
290 CTR 263 · 2016 · High Court
583
citing judgments

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

Judgments citing Section 132(4)

Prashant Soni, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2612/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanprashant Soni, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 7, M-50, First Floor, Delhi. Guru Harkishan Nagar, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi – 110 087. (Pan : Basps5961H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 30.08.2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Raised Legal Issue Relating To Assumption Of Jurisdiction Under Section 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) By Raising Ground Nos.1 & 2 Which Read As Under :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao & Impugned Order Passed By The Cit (A) Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 292C

conducted) which is 31.12.2018 3 4. He further submitted that notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is in contravention of provisions of section 132(4) of the Act and section 292C of the Act and the binding circular No. 24/2015 dated 31.12.2015 issued by the Central Board of Taxes

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Nethi Ravi, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 594/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.594/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Nethi Ravi Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Adbpn7597F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 69A

assessee out of which cash of Rs. 4,63,49,000/- was seized by the Revenue. In the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, the assessee explained that out of the cash found, an amount of Rs.2.50 crores belongs to the Spectra India Group, and the balance ... accepted only the amount of Rs.2.50 crores as belonging to the Spectra India Group, as admitted in the original statement under section 132(4) of the Act, and treated the balance amount of Rs.2,15,49,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act in the hands