← 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)

Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 302/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.301 To 303/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Adopa7925R Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.304 To 306/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Ankit Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Bnlpa0543D Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri Sharad Chandra Toshniwal, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 14/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Captioned Assessees, Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)") For The A.Ys.2018-19 To 2020-21 Respectively. These Six Appeals Of The Assessees Involve Identical Issues Arising Out Of Similar Facts & Are Therefore Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Consistency. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Some Appeals & 15 Days In Others. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petitions Along With Affidavits, Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Going Through The Condonation Petitions & The Material On Record & Considering The Submissions Of The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. Ar") & The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr"), In The Interest Of Substantial Justice, We Condone The Delay In Filing All The Appeals & Admit Them For Adjudication On Merits.

For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

cross-examination to assessee was not valid as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice and against the law. 4.1 Section 132(4) of Income tax Act "(4) The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found ... statement to cross check the statement given by Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal on 04.06.2019. No statement of Petitioner is recorded till date under section 132(4) of Income Tax Act and when the Ld. AO has is of the firm opinion as per order dated 15.03.2023 that transactions are done

Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.301 To 303/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Kiran Devi Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Adopa7925R (Appellant) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.304 To 306/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21) Ankit Agarwal, Hyderabad. Pan:Bnlpa0543D (Appellant) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri Sharad Chandra Toshniwal, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 14/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Captioned Assessees, Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)") For The A.Ys.2018-19 To 2020-21 Respectively. These Six Appeals Of The Assessees Involve Identical Issues Arising Out Of Similar Facts & Are Therefore Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Consistency. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Some Appeals & 15 Days In Others. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petitions Along With Affidavits, Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Going Through The Condonation Petitions & The Material On Record & Considering The Submissions Of The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. Ar") & The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr"), In The Interest Of Substantial Justice, We Condone The Delay In Filing All The Appeals & Admit Them For Adjudication On Merits.

For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

cross-examination to assessee was not valid as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice and against the law. 4.1 Section 132(4) of Income tax Act "(4) The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found ... statement to cross check the statement given by Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal on 04.06.2019. No statement of Petitioner is recorded till date under Section 132(4) of Income Tax Act and when the Ld. AO has is of the firm opinion as per order dated 15.03.2023 that transactions are done

A One Sizing Works, Bhiwandi vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3, Thane

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6458/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 A One Sizing Works, The Asst. Cit Central Circle 3, House No. 1237, Opp. Ganesh 12, A Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Compound, Behind Mahakali Vs. Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Dyeing Narpoli, Industrial Estate, Bhiwandi-421302. Thane West-400604. Pan No. Aajfa 6696 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Simran DhawanFor Respondent: 16/06/2025
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

were recorded. One such individual was Shri Bhadresh were recorded. One such individual was Shri Bhadresh Dodhia, who, in his statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Dodhia, who, in his statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Dodhia, who, in his statement recorded under Section 132(4

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Solstar Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 4675/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

makes it clear that the relevant incriminating material had been found/seized from Sh. Gupta and as per his search statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act than from the assessee’s possession or premises; as the case may be. 5. Learned CIT(DR) at this stage vehemently argues

Solstar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Soham Exim Pvt. Ltd. ), Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 31, Delhi

ITA 4015/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

makes it clear that the relevant incriminating material had been found/seized from Sh. Gupta and as per his search statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act than from the assessee’s possession or premises; as the case may be. 5. Learned CIT(DR) at this stage vehemently argues

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Archana Dalmia, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3998/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3998/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), 14Th Floor, E-2 Block Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 11002 बनाम Vs. Archana Dalmia, 3, Sikandra Road, Kalmia House, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aagpd-7794-N Assessee By : S/Shri Kunal Agarwal, Chartered Accountant & Manish Agarwal, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2024, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Sold 23,500 Shares Of Durga Enterprises P. Ltd., During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal To Pyramid Commodities (P) Ltd. (Unrelated Party) For A Total Consideration Of Rs.19,97,50,000/-. The Assessee Suffered Long Term

For Appellant: S/Shri Kunal Agarwal, Chartered Accountant &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 55(2)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ए”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Aachman Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 385/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 1ISection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1870/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

accepted by assessing officer on the basis of the fact that during the search action, statement of assessee was also recorded under section 132(4) wherein, she disclosed that she is a house wife and does not have any source of income. The assessing officer extracted relevant part ... assessment order and the submission of assessee including Circular of CBDT No. 5 of 2010 noted that assessee in her statement, recorded under section 132(4) stated that she is house-wife and does not have any source of income and not filed return of income. However, the assessee

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1869/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

accepted by assessing officer on the basis of the fact that during the search action, statement of assessee was also recorded under section 132(4) wherein, she disclosed that she is a house wife and does not have any source of income. The assessing officer extracted relevant part ... assessment order and the submission of assessee including Circular of CBDT No. 5 of 2010 noted that assessee in her statement, recorded under section 132(4) stated that she is house-wife and does not have any source of income and not filed return of income. However, the assessee

Priti Suresh Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1868/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 274Section 44ASection 69A

accepted by assessing officer on the basis of the fact that during the search action, statement of assessee was also recorded under section 132(4) wherein, she disclosed that she is a house wife and does not have any source of income. The assessing officer extracted relevant part ... assessment order and the submission of assessee including Circular of CBDT No. 5 of 2010 noted that assessee in her statement, recorded under section 132(4) stated that she is house-wife and does not have any source of income and not filed return of income. However, the assessee

Index Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 4641/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

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

Mohd. Alam, Moradabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Moradabad

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4520/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

ITA Nos.4519 & 4520/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Mohd. Alam, Moradabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Moradabad

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4519/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

ITA Nos.4519 & 4520/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3319/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3318/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3317/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

Shah Brothers, Chaibasa vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, Revenue's appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 275/RAN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.275/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shah Brothers, Chaibasa……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aazfs7498F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,04,03,980/- For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.102.108 Accepting The Said Returned Income. Subsequently, Based On Information Received From Dcit, Cc-1(3), Mumbai, It Was Alleged That The Said Assessee Had Claimed A Bogus Contract Expenses Of Rs.2,69,14,526/- In Lieu Of The Bogus Work Order To M/S Pandhe Infracons Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2015-16 Without Any Actual Work Had Been Performed. The Revenue Relied Upon Search Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Conducted On M/S

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 250Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2(2), Chennai vs. S K T Studios, Chennai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2658/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

Radhe Developers India Ltd 341 ITR 403 (Guj.) (2017) the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) can be used as evidence, but it should not be the sole basis for additions unless it is corroborated by other evidence. The court emphasized that

Virender Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2689/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153C

banking transactions as well the unaccounted cash transactions. He further contented that the person belonging to JBL in 8 their statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act during the search admitted that accounted and unaccounted cash entries were recorded in the Hazi Johri Software pertaining to the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Dahyabhai Purshotamdas Chauhan, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue

ITA 728/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 132Section 144Section 254(1)

known entry provider. A search action was carried out on various bogus entities managed by Vipul Bhatt. His statement was recorded under section 132(4) wherein he has admitted to have provided accommodation entry to a number of person. The assessee has received accommodation entry of Rs.28,88,935/-. Before