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

Asst CIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. V.K. Rajendran, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1442/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1442/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asst. Cit-32(3), V. K. Rajendran Room No. 108, 1St Floor, F-406, Country Park, Dattapada बनाम/ Bldg. No. C-11, Pratyakshakar Road, Borivali (E), Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 066 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Arvind Kumar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. J. Vyas & Shri Devang Divecha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 27.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 27.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.12.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 30.1.2013. 2. At The Very Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Authorized Representatives, The Assessee’S Counsels, Shri B. J. Vyas & Shri Devang Divecha, That The Tax Effect Of The Revenue’S Appeal Is Below Rs.10 Lacs & Which Is Therefore Not Maintainable U/S. 268A Of The Act In View Of The Recent Instruction Issued By The Board (Instruction No. 21 Of 2015 Dated 10.12.2015 (F. No. 279/Misc/142/2007-It(Pt)). The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. J. Vyas &
Section 143(3)Section 268A

ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Taj Tv Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7639/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.Ta. No.7639/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Asstt.Director Of Income Tax (It)- बनधम/ M/S Taj T V Limited, 2(2), C/O Suresh Surana & Associates, Vs. R No.116, Scindia House, 309, Ahura Centre, Ballard Pier, N M Road, 82, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400038 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabct6542J अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri J Saravanan प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By Shri Hiten Chande सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement:27.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Dated 30.8.2013 Of Ld.Cit(A)-10, Mumbai, For Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. We Find From The Orders Of Authorities Below That The Tax Effect Involved In The Above Referred Case Is Below The Monetary Limit (Rs. 10,00,000/-) Prescribed By The Central Board Of Director Taxes(Cbdt), Vide Its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.L42/2007- Itj (Pt.) Dated 10Th December, 2015. 3. Shri Hiten Chande Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Departmental Representative (Dr) On A Query By The Bench Fairly Conceded That The Tax Effect Involved In The Above Case Is Less Than Rs.10.00 Lacs. Considering These Facts, We Dismiss The Appeal Holding It As Not Maintainable U/S. 268A Of The Act.

Section 268A

ITO 25(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Shree Balkrishna Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5266/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5266/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Income Tax Officer-25(2)(3), बनधम/ M/S Shree Balkrushna Enterprises, C-11, 1St Floor,, 103, Girikunj, Plot No.Rsc No.21, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Near Gorai, Borivali (W), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400091 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Abefs9722L अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri J Saravanan प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By Ms. Vidhi Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement:27.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Dated 3.5.2013 Of Ld.Cit(A)-35, Mumbai, For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. We Find From The Orders Of Authorities Below That The Tax Effect Involved In The Above Referred Case Is Below The Monetary Limit (Rs. 10,00,000/-) Prescribed By The Central Board Of Director Taxes(Cbdt), Vide Its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.L42/2007- Itj (Pt.) Dated 10Th December, 2015. 3. Ms.Vidhi Gupta Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Departmental Representative (Dr) On A Query By The Bench Fairly Conceded That The Tax Effect

Section 268A