← 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 Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Jasmine Buildmart Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1268/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-27, 406, Elegance Tower-8, New Delhi. Jsola District Centre, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaccj5119J Co No.34/Del/2023 (Ita No.1268/Del/2020) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 406, Elegance Tower-8, Central Circle-27, Jsola District Centre, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaccj5119J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca; Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate; & Ms Rinki Sharma, Itp. Revenue By : Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon Co No.34/Del/2020 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.44/Cit(A)(C)/Ggn/2014-15 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 24.03.2014 Passed U/S 153B(1)(B) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Central Circle-I, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Also Filed The Cross Objections.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 253

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH