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

Jewel Art, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4908/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Jewel Art Dcit, Cc-13, Gala No. 19/22, Gem & Jewellery [Now Dcit, Cc-2(3)], Mumbai. Complex No. Ii, Seepz, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400096. Pan: Aacfj2646R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rishabh Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2016 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal U/S 253 Of The Income-Tax Act Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Dated 05.08.2015 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Action U/S 132 & Survey U/S 133A Of The Income-Tax Act Was Carried Out In Case Of Asian Star Group On 29.10.2010. Consequent Upon Search, The Notice U/S 153 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 27.09.2011. While Framing The Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Besides The Other Addition Made The Addition Of Rs. 44,59,441/- Holding That The Income From Other Sources Which Was Earned As Interest On Fd’S Is Not Eligible For Exemption U/S 10A. Aggrieved By The Order Of Ao, Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia (DR)
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 253Section 80I

Hi Klass Moving Picture P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 929/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.926 To 931/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2007-08) Hiklass Moving Picture Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cir-6(3), Mumbai Ltd., 607/3, Navjivan Society, Lamingaton Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 1582 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C Of I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Years Under Consideration. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That There Was A Search U/S.132 In The Raisoni-Sancheti Group Of Cases. As A Part Of The Said Group, The Director Of Assessee-Company Shri Chaitanya Kochar Was Also Covered Under The Search Conducted. During The Course Of The Search Undertaken, It Was Found That The Assessee- Company Was A Paper Company Used By The Raisoni-Sancheti Group As A 2

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

Hi Klass Moving Picture P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 928/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.926 To 931/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2007-08) Hiklass Moving Picture Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cir-6(3), Mumbai Ltd., 607/3, Navjivan Society, Lamingaton Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 1582 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C Of I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Years Under Consideration. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That There Was A Search U/S.132 In The Raisoni-Sancheti Group Of Cases. As A Part Of The Said Group, The Director Of Assessee-Company Shri Chaitanya Kochar Was Also Covered Under The Search Conducted. During The Course Of The Search Undertaken, It Was Found That The Assessee- Company Was A Paper Company Used By The Raisoni-Sancheti Group As A 2

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

Hi Klass Moving Picture P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 927/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.926 To 931/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 To 2007-08) Hiklass Moving Picture Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cir-6(3), Mumbai Ltd., 607/3, Navjivan Society, Lamingaton Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 1582 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2002-03 To 2007-08, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C Of I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Years Under Consideration. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That There Was A Search U/S.132 In The Raisoni-Sancheti Group Of Cases. As A Part Of The Said Group, The Director Of Assessee-Company Shri Chaitanya Kochar Was Also Covered Under The Search Conducted. During The Course Of The Search Undertaken, It Was Found That The Assessee- Company Was A Paper Company Used By The Raisoni-Sancheti Group As A 2

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 153C