← 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)

Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

ITA 1180/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1178 To 1182/Chny/2025 िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 M/S. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Old No.68-69, Nsc Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai. [Pan: Aafcm 9906 M] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1393 To 1397/Chny/2025 िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai. V. M/S. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Old No.68-69, Nsc Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aafcm 9906 M] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Jayalakshmi Ammal (390 ITR 189)(Mad) to be of relevance, wherein it was held that, unless the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act is corroborated by documentary evidence, such statement alone cannot be the sole basis for making additions in the assessment order. The relevant findings ... have to consider, as to whether there is any corroborative material evidence. If there is no corroborating documentary evidence, then statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities