← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle vs. Aryan Arcade Limited, Rajkot

ITA 229/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ. (खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.14/Rjt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: (2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम Shri Gopal Bhupendra Chudasama, Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta /Vs. Shop 10, Om Shivalik, 8 Chandan Estate", 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Park, Nr. Paradise Hall, Rajkot-360 Rajkot-360 001 005 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpc 5612 L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आ. (खो और ज). सं./It(Ss)A Nos.63 To 65/Rjt/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: (2016-17 To 2018-19) M/S Aryan Arcade Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta | बनाम Estate", 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, /Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Iscon Mega Mall, Basement, Nana Mauva, Main Road, Of 150 Ft, Ring Road, Opp. Nehru Nagar Society, Rajkot-360 009 (Guj) स्थायी लेखा सं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafca 0162 P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.229/Rjt/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta | बनाम M/S Aryan Arcade Ltd. Estate", 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, /Vs. Iscon Mega Mall, Basement, Nana Rajkot-360001 Mauva, Main Road, Of 150 Ft, Ring Road, Opp. Nehru Nagar Society, Rajkot-360 009(Guj) स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafca 0162 P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Maneesh Upnejja, Ld. Ar & Shri Baldev Raj, Ld. Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2025 It(Ss)A Nos. 14/Rjt/2024, 63-65/Rjt/2023 & Ita No.229/Rjt/2023, Ays 14-15, 16-17 To 19-20 Gopal B Chudasama & Aryan Arcade Ltd. आदेश/Order Per Bench: This Is Bunch Of Five Appeals By The Revenue, Pertaining To Separate

For Appellant: Shri Maneesh Upnejja, Ld. AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI