Section 268A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.373

Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 373 (Filing of appeal by income-tax authority) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 373 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 268A is Seth R. Dalmia v. CIT (110 ITR 644), cited in 40 of the 3,931 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 268A

Seth R. Dalmia v. CIT
110 ITR 644 · 1977 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

An indirect connection between expenditure and income can be sufficient to establish the required nexus for deductibility under Section 57(iii). The connection need not be direct.

Krishnanand Agnihotri v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
1 SCC 816 · 1977 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

The burden of proving a transaction to be benami, or that the apparent owner is not the real owner, rests strictly on the party asserting it, requiring definite evidence or circumstances that reasonably infer the fact, not mere suspicion.

CIT v. H.H. Maharani Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi
100 ITR 67 · 1975 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The connection between an expenditure and the earning of income need not be direct; an indirect connection can establish the nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income earned for the purpose of Section 57(iii).

CIT v. Smt. Sushila Devi Khadaria
319 ITR 413 · 2009 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Expenditure is deductible under Section 57(iii) if it has a proximate and relevant connection to the earning of income, even if the income arises as a by-product of other activities.

Ajay Sharma v. Dy. CIT
30 Taxmann.com 109 · 2013 · Reported
25
citing judgments

Where no undisclosed income or incriminating material is found during a search, penalty under section 271AAB cannot be imposed. Additions based on alleged receivables from seized papers require direct material to establish undeclared income.

CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia
61 ITR 663 · 1966 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Expenditure is deductible under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act only if it is incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning dividend income.

DCIT v. Manish Agarwal
92 Taxmann.com 81 · 2018 · Reported
19
citing judgments

Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not mandate the imposition of penalty in every case of default; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to levy or not levy a penalty, which must be exercised judiciously considering all relevant circumstances.

CIT v. Madhukar K Inamdar HUF
318 ITR 149 · 2009 · High Court
7
citing judgments
ITO v. Palak Chinubhai Patel
137 Taxmann.com 194 · 2022 · ITAT
4
citing judgments
81 Taxmann.com 245 (Pune Trib) 2. M/s Nippon Paint India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
16 Taxmann.com 352 · 2011 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 268A

ITO 22(3)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Rajendra B.Patel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3305/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito-22(3)(3), Shri Rajendra B. Patel Room No.308, 3Rd Floor, C-305, Itc Park, Ii Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Vs. Tower No.8, Cbd Belapur Station Complex, Vashi, Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400706. Navi Mumbai-614. Pan: Adjpp3253E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Aurangabad Dated 12.03.2014 For Assessment Year 2007-08. This Appeal Was Heard On 25.06.2018. The Ld Dr For The Revenue & Ms. Deepa Khare Ld Ar For The Assessee Made Their Detail Submissions, However, Before The Order Could Be Passed, The Cbdt Issued A Circular No. 3/2018 Dated 11Th July 2018 For Fixing The Monitory Limit For Filing Appeal Before Tribunal. While Passing The Order We Have Noted That The Tax Effect Involve In The Appeal Is Below The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20,00,000/- As Prescribed By The Central Board Of Direct Taxes(Cbdt), Vide Its Circular No.3/2018 Dated 11Th July, 2018. Therefore, We Fixed The Present Appeal For Today, For Clarification From The Revenue If The Appeal Is Covered By The Said Circular. The Registry Was Directed To Inform The Assessee/ Ld Ar For The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar SinghFor Respondent: None
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 268A