← 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-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mahesh K Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3032/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarincome Tax Officer-19(2)(2) Mahesh K Joshi 503, 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office, 42, A/3, 479 Jariwala Building, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Arther Road, Tardeo, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 034 Pan/Gir No. Aadhm 4623 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Annavram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of The Order Dated 24.02.205, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2011-12. 2. Though The Department Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, The Solitary Issue Arising In The Appeal Relates To Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.1,04,16,232/- Made By The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short), Alleging Non-Genuine Transaction. When The Matter Was Called Out, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. A Perusal Of Record Reveals That On Earlier Occasions Also The Assessee Failed To Appear, Though, Several Notices Of Hearing Were Sent To The Assessee. Keeping In View The Nature Of Dispute & Other Attending Facts & Circumstances, We Deem It Appropriate To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex Parte Qua The Assessee With The Assistance Of Ld. Departmental Representative (‘Ld. Dr’ For Short) & Based On Facts & Materials Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavram Kosuri
Section 132(4)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Satyanarayana Reddy Cheruku, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

ITA 1358/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1358/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11) Satyanarayana Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Cheruku, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaupc0479M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, Dated 23/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 11/12/2017 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant