“Section 108(4)”

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

Where the shares of beneficiaries in a trust are determinate, trustees must be assessed separately for each beneficiary's share, treating each beneficiary as an individual. The income is then taxed at the marginal rate applicable to individuals, not at the maximum rate for an association of persons.

A statement made under sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act is not a statement made by a person accused of an offence, but Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act applies because a customs officer is considered an officer in authority. This principle is extended to statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, where their voluntariness can be scrutinized, though they are admissible.

When a statement is made voluntarily and not under coercion, and the assessee fails to take steps to rectify it before the relevant authorities, the retraction of such a statement later is not valid.

Once an application for settlement is made under Section 245C(1) and accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), and a final order is passed under Section 245D(4), the Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. An order under Section 245D(4) is distinct from a regular assessment under Sections 143(1), 143(3), or 144.

If an Assessing Officer has raised questions and considered an issue during assessment proceedings, the fact that the issue is not discussed in the assessment order does not automatically mean the Assessing Officer did not apply their mind. A revisional authority cannot direct a fuller inquiry if the Assessing Officer has already conducted a proper inquiry and adopted a possible view.