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

Asst CIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai vs. Pravin S. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4005/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhi.T.A. No.4005/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle 43, Mr. Pravin S. Jain, R.No.659, 6Th Floor, 203, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. 104, 1St Floor, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. 400002. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpj2451M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Daya Sagar, Cit-Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Manish Sanghavi सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2015 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue On 2.6.2014 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-38, Mumbai Dated 27.2.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Core Issue Raised In This Appeal Relates To The Levyabilty Of Penalty U/S 271Aaa Of The Act When There Is No Warrant In The Name Of The Assessee Initiating Search & When The Assessments Were Made U/S 153C Of The Act. Briefly Stated Relevant Facts Of The Case Are That There Was A Search Action In The Case Of Shri Hasmukh Jokmal Jain & Shri Indramal Solanki On 8.5.2009. Subsequent To The Search Action, There Was A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act On The Premises Of The Assessee, Who Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Darshan Gold, A Proprietary Concern. It Is An Undisputed Fact That The Assessments In The Case Of The Assessee Were Completed U/S 153C Of The Act & Not U/S 153A Of The Act. 3. With The Background Of The Above Facts, Ld Counsel For The Assessee Demonstrated That The Penalty Proceedings Initiated U/S 271Aaa Of The Act In The Case Of The Assessee & Levied Penalty Of Rs. 20 Lakhs. In This Regard, Ld Counsel

For Appellant: Shri Daya Sagar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sanghavi
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 271A