Section 132 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.247, 249, 251

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 247 (Search and seizure), section 249 (Reasons not to be disclosed) and section 251 (Copying, extraction, retention and release of books of account and documents seized or requisitioned) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 247 of the 2025 ActRead section 249 of the 2025 ActRead section 251 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 132 is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 14,598 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 132

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

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.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

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.

Judgments on Section 132

Paramjeet Singh, Yamuna Nagar vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle (2), Chandigarh, DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 204/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Paramjeet Singh Dcit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ (C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates) Sector-17 Sco No 823-24, Sector 22-A Chandigarh-160017 Vs. Chandigarh-160022 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Astps-8898-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhruv Goel(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 153A Of The Act On 23-06-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.82.18 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) -Ld. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai vs. Khopoli Investments Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both Assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3846/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarkhopoli Investments V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle– 206, 1St Floor, Dalamal 4(1), 420, 4Th Floor,Kautilya House, J.B. Marg Nariman Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Point, Mumbai – 400 021, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack1740J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Khopoli Investments Tax, Central Circle–4(1), 420, बनाम Limited 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 206, 1St Floor, Dalamal Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, House, J.B. Marg Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack1740J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By : Shri Priyank Ghia,Ar Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- 1. The Above Captioned Appeal Ita No. 3789/Mum/2025 Is Preferred By The Assessee & Ita No. 3846/Mum/2025 Is Filed By P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Ghia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68