← 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)

DCIT, Delhi vs. Shalimar Corp. Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2502/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

lead” assessment year 2011-12. It would indeed be relevant to clarify here that the assessee/its authorized person had got recorded section 132(4) search statement admitting on-money of Rs.101 crores before the learned departmental authorities. 4. We now advert to the relevant section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) proceedings ... component computation by a further sum of Rs.101 crores (supra) representing the former authorized representative’s declaration during the course of search in section 132(4) statement as mentioned earlier. Learned CIT(DR)’s vehement contention is that the same could not have formed part of the special auditor

Shalimar Corp Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 2360/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

lead” assessment year 2011-12. It would indeed be relevant to clarify here that the assessee/its authorized person had got recorded section 132(4) search statement admitting on-money of Rs.101 crores before the learned departmental authorities. 4. We now advert to the relevant section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) proceedings ... component computation by a further sum of Rs.101 crores (supra) representing the former authorized representative’s declaration during the course of search in section 132(4) statement as mentioned earlier. Learned CIT(DR)’s vehement contention is that the same could not have formed part of the special auditor

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Shalimar Corp. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2854/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

lead” assessment year 2011-12. It would indeed be relevant to clarify here that the assessee/its authorized person had got recorded section 132(4) search statement admitting on-money of Rs.101 crores before the learned departmental authorities. 4. We now advert to the relevant section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) proceedings ... component computation by a further sum of Rs.101 crores (supra) representing the former authorized representative’s declaration during the course of search in section 132(4) statement as mentioned earlier. Learned CIT(DR)’s vehement contention is that the same could not have formed part of the special auditor

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Shalimar Corp. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2853/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

lead” assessment year 2011-12. It would indeed be relevant to clarify here that the assessee/its authorized person had got recorded section 132(4) search statement admitting on-money of Rs.101 crores before the learned departmental authorities. 4. We now advert to the relevant section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) proceedings ... component computation by a further sum of Rs.101 crores (supra) representing the former authorized representative’s declaration during the course of search in section 132(4) statement as mentioned earlier. Learned CIT(DR)’s vehement contention is that the same could not have formed part of the special auditor

Shalimar Corp Ltd, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 2768/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

lead” assessment year 2011-12. It would indeed be relevant to clarify here that the assessee/its authorized person had got recorded section 132(4) search statement admitting on-money of Rs.101 crores before the learned departmental authorities. 4. We now advert to the relevant section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) proceedings ... component computation by a further sum of Rs.101 crores (supra) representing the former authorized representative’s declaration during the course of search in section 132(4) statement as mentioned earlier. Learned CIT(DR)’s vehement contention is that the same could not have formed part of the special auditor

Shalimar Corp Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 2767/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

lead” assessment year 2011-12. It would indeed be relevant to clarify here that the assessee/its authorized person had got recorded section 132(4) search statement admitting on-money of Rs.101 crores before the learned departmental authorities. 4. We now advert to the relevant section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) proceedings ... component computation by a further sum of Rs.101 crores (supra) representing the former authorized representative’s declaration during the course of search in section 132(4) statement as mentioned earlier. Learned CIT(DR)’s vehement contention is that the same could not have formed part of the special auditor

Shalimar Corp Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 2766/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

lead” assessment year 2011-12. It would indeed be relevant to clarify here that the assessee/its authorized person had got recorded section 132(4) search statement admitting on-money of Rs.101 crores before the learned departmental authorities. 4. We now advert to the relevant section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) proceedings ... component computation by a further sum of Rs.101 crores (supra) representing the former authorized representative’s declaration during the course of search in section 132(4) statement as mentioned earlier. Learned CIT(DR)’s vehement contention is that the same could not have formed part of the special auditor

Shalimar Corp Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 2765/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

lead” assessment year 2011-12. It would indeed be relevant to clarify here that the assessee/its authorized person had got recorded section 132(4) search statement admitting on-money of Rs.101 crores before the learned departmental authorities. 4. We now advert to the relevant section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) proceedings ... component computation by a further sum of Rs.101 crores (supra) representing the former authorized representative’s declaration during the course of search in section 132(4) statement as mentioned earlier. Learned CIT(DR)’s vehement contention is that the same could not have formed part of the special auditor

Shalimar Corp Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT Center Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 2764/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

lead” assessment year 2011-12. It would indeed be relevant to clarify here that the assessee/its authorized person had got recorded section 132(4) search statement admitting on-money of Rs.101 crores before the learned departmental authorities. 4. We now advert to the relevant section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) proceedings ... component computation by a further sum of Rs.101 crores (supra) representing the former authorized representative’s declaration during the course of search in section 132(4) statement as mentioned earlier. Learned CIT(DR)’s vehement contention is that the same could not have formed part of the special auditor