← 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)

Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur, Central Revenue Building vs. Mohammad Ibrahim, Prop Janta Sanitation

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 698/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Vs Mohammand Ibrahim, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Ring Road No. 1, Pachpedinaka Raipur- 492001, C.G. Raipur- 492001, C.G. Pan: Aigpm6755J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: The Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.09.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 69C

Rastogi Group of Cases under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), the statement of Shri Praveen Rastogi was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, wherein Shri Praveen Rastogi categorically admitted that he had provided accommodation entries to various persons through his business concerns; namely ... different. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR contended that the assessee had failed to demonstrate that the statement of Shri Praveen Rastogi recorded under section 132(4) of the Act was incorrect or Shri Praveen Rastogi had retracted his statement. Thus, the presumption drawn by the Ld. AO could