Section 6 of the Income Tax Act

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

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.

An inordinately delayed order, especially one passed without proper notice, is vitiated and liable to be recalled and heard afresh. Such orders, passed with unwarranted delay or without due notice, constitute a violation of natural justice, rendering them invalid.

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

The tax liability under the Income-tax Act is civil in nature. To establish such a liability, evidence need not be "beyond doubt" as required for criminal liability; it can be proven on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

An Assessing Officer may reject the genuineness of a transaction if the evidence provided by the assessee is not trustworthy, even if the transaction appears to be conducted through cheques or other formal means. The burden of proving the genuineness of a transaction lies primarily on the assessee.

Credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) must be granted to the taxpayer even if the income on which TDS was deducted is not taxable in India or if the obligation to deduct tax under a specific section is not affected by a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).