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

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Simaaya Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1433/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1433/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T, C.C - 2(3), Kolkata..............................…………………………………......................Appellant Room No. 403, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawabn Poorva, 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. Bye-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. Simaaya Fashions Pvt. Ltd......……………………………………………………........Respondent 23A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. [Pan: Aamcs 7514 A] Appearances By: Md. Usman, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca & Shri Amit Agarwal, Avocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 27, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 20, Kolkata Dated 08.03.2017 & The Solitary Ground Raised By The Revenue Therein Reads As Under: “Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In The Law & In View Of The Distinction Of Facts Of The Instant Case (Discussed Elaborately In The Statement Of Facts), The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Justified In Allowing Relief To The Assessee.”

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

M/S.Rabindu N. Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are Dismissed

ITA 997/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.997/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08) M/S. Rabindu N. Shah Huf Income Tax Officer 32(3)(1) B–605, Shatrunjay Apartments, Bandra Kurla Complex बिधम/ Nandniwas Chs, L.T.Road, Mumbai – 400051. Borivali (West) Vs. Mumbai – 400092 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aalhr1517C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.998/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08) Rashmi N. Shah Income Tax Officer 32(3)(1) B–605, Shatrunjay Apartments, Bandra Kurla Complex बिधम/ Nandniwas Chs, L.T.Road, Mumbai – 400051. Borivali (West) Vs. Mumbai – 400092 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Abdps4501J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Swapan Kumar Bepari

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bepari
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148