“Section 6(1)(m)”

If an assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, including the right to cross-examine a witness, the assessment should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity, even if the assessee failed to appear at an appellate stage. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should ensure such matters are re-adjudicated.

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

Where an assessee proves the genuineness of share transactions with supporting documents like contract notes, bank statements, and DMAT accounts, the Assessing Officer cannot treat the resulting capital gain as unexplained cash credit or make an addition under Section 68.

An assessment cannot be deemed liable for revision under section 263 merely because show-cause notices issued to the taxpayer went un-responded. Such revision directions are not sustainable if the issue has already been decided by case law.

A statement recorded under section 132(4A) is presumed to be true unless the assessee can rebut the presumption by proving the retraction was made spontaneously.

Unexplained cash credits, accommodation entries, and share application monies from shell companies can be added to income under Section 68 if the assessee fails to prove the genuineness and bonafides of the transactions. The genuineness of a transaction is a matter of perception based on facts and ground realities.

Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court does not necessarily mean the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, but rather that it found no reason to interfere with the High Court's ruling. The Karnataka High Court in CIT v. M. J. Siwani held that ownership or co-ownership of property is a crucial factor for claiming deduction under Section 54F.