← 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)

Vijetha Donthiri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1355/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1355/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Vijetha Donthiri, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Pan:Alqpd4873P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/ 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 20/08/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Vijetha Donthiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 29.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., (supra), which is to the following effect : “38. Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Commissioner of Income ... contained any such admission.” 10. On perusal of above, we found that, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not, by themselves, serve as incriminating material. The court emphasized that these statements must be supported by independent evidence

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, Chennai

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

ITA 617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.617/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan: Aakps5124P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohan Das, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das, CA
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

justify the original claim. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that it was the assessee who denied the statement recorded under Section 132(4), and not Shri Kirthivasan. There is no mention in the assessment order or on record of any retraction made by Shri Kirthivasan. 11. After ... assessee’s premises or elsewhere to support the alleged loan transaction. The Assessing Officer relied mainly on the assessee’s statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and in the absence of corroborative evidence; the statement alone cannot substantiate the addition, especially when retracted. For the above preposition