Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act

Curative amendments, such as a proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced to remove undue hardship, apply retrospectively even without specific legislative declaration, rectifying shortcomings and obviating unintended difficulties.

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aims to prevent tax evasion by treating certain payments made by closely held companies to shareholders or their concerns as dividends.

The Supreme Court remands a matter when an assessee is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine individuals whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.

Revenue officials have a duty to guide assessees in making claims permissible under the law, as indicated by a Board circular. The assessment officer's duty at the original assessment stage includes considering grounds for relief under specific Finance Act provisions.

Additions to income cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement without corroborating documentary evidence. Statements made under oath can be used as evidence, but without credible supporting evidence, additions cannot be made based purely on confessions during search or survey operations.

Penalty proceedings cannot be sustained if the foundation on which they were initiated fails, even if the addition is upheld on a different ground. Mere rejection of a claim does not automatically imply concealment of income.

An Assessing Officer can invoke jurisdiction under section 153C based on a statement made by a searched person under section 132(4) that discloses additional income relating to the assessee.