← All Phrases

“Section 10(268)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(268)3 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(268) is CIT v. Smt. Sumitra Devi (102 DTR 342), cited in 53 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(268)

CIT v. Smt. Sumitra Devi
102 DTR 342 · 2014 · High Court
53
citing judgments

To disallow long-term capital gains, the Assessing Officer must rely on cogent proof, not mere suspicion or presumption, regarding share price manipulation or the nature of the companies involved.

CIT v. Suman Poddar
268 Taxmann 320 · 2020 · Supreme Court
19
citing judgments

The Supreme Court dismisses an SLP challenging the Delhi High Court's view that tribunal findings based on record material do not require interference, particularly in cases involving bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks where the assessee fails to establish genuineness of transactions.

Garden Finance Ltd. v. CIT (Asst.)
268 ITR 48 · 2004 · High Court
14
citing judgments

An assessee must first file preliminary objections with the Assessing Officer regarding a reassessment notice. The Assessing Officer must decide these objections by passing a speaking order before the assessee can approach the High Court.

Judgments citing Section 10(268)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. M/S. U.P. State Construction & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

Ground of appeal number 3 is as under- 3. That the Ld. A.O. was wrong in disallowing the claim of exemption under Section 10(268) of the Income Tax Act to the extent of Rs. 29, 10,000/- on the following grounds:- (a) The Ld. A.O. made the disallowance wrongly ... against the rule of consistency and bad in law. (d) Findings of the Ld. A.O. that the "Assessee is claiming exemption under Section 10(268) in respect of projects which is not for the benefit of SC/ST/OBC and General Community also is not based on correct appreciation of facts

U.P Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited (Now Known As U.P State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.), Lucknow vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

ITA 67/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

Ground of appeal number 3 is as under- 3. That the Ld. A.O. was wrong in disallowing the claim of exemption under Section 10(268) of the Income Tax Act to the extent of Rs.29, 10,000/- on the following grounds:- (a) The Ld. A.O. made the disallowance wrongly ... against the rule of consistency and bad in law. (c) Findings of the Ld. A.O. that the "Assessee is claiming exemption under Section 10(268) in respect of projects which is for the benefit of SC/ST/OBC and General Community also" is not based on correct appreciation of facts and wrong

Uttaranchal Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam, Dehradun vs. ITO, W- 1(1)(2), Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Uttaranchal Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Income Tax Officer, Evam Vikash Nigam, Vs. Ward-1(1)(2), 13, H.N. Janjati Nideshalya, Bhagat Subhash Road, Singh Colony, Adhoiwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aaacu6529K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Uttaranchal Bahuuddesiiya Vitt Evam
Section 10Section 10(268)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

ITA No.127/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER