“Section 153(6)”

A live link of third-party information can form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148, provided it contains material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, which can be satisfied by such information even if it pertains to other assessees or relates to accommodation entries.

The department cannot improve upon the Assessing Officer's case by changing the basis of additions without issuing a show cause notice to the assessee.

An assessment order that is not served on the assessee before the assessment's time-barring date is considered non-est, meaning it is void and without legal effect.

The Supreme Court recognizes that complex issues may necessitate reliance on prior Apex Court decisions. This case is cited alongside others for considering such complex matters.

Additions to income cannot be made based solely on statements or confessions recorded at the time of a search, without corroborating evidence. Such confessions lack evidentiary value if not supported by other proof.

A satisfaction note for reassessment proceedings is invalid if it does not mention a Document Identification Number (DIN), as mandated by CBDT Circulars. The case clarifies that the absence of a DIN renders the notice procedurally flawed.

Income from services rendered in connection with the extraction and production of mineral oils is taxable under section 44BB, as it is a specific provision that overrides general provisions.

An assessment order passed based on a draft assessment order issued to a non-existent entity is void ab initio. This applies where a draft assessment order under section 144C was passed in the name of an amalgamating company that was no longer in existence on the date of the order.