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

DCIT 5(3), Mumbai vs. Tag Offshore Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6862/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6862/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-5(3), Tag Offshore Ltd. बनाम/ 573, Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, 137/138 A, Jolly Maker, Mumbai-400 020 Chambers-Ii, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct 8019 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.5.2016 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)-9, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 03.9.2013, Contesting The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 28.06.2012. 2. None Appeared For & Behalf Of The Assessee-Respondent When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, Despite Service Of Notice Of Hearing Sent Through Rpad & Also Through Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative (Dr). At The Very Outset, It Was Observed By The Bench 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

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder SindhuFor Respondent: None
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

ACIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Santosh A. Patekar, Mumbai

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

ITA 1830/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1830/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit-22(3), Santosh A. Patekar बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, B-1304/1305, Bolivan Alps, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Bhakti Park, Near 1-Max, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai- 400 037 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ahlpp 6643 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K Mohandas ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.05.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.05.2016 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)-33, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 24.12.2012, 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.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 23.12.2011. 2. None Appeared For & Behalf Of The Assessee-Respondent When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, Despite Service Of Notice Of Hearing, Which The Ld. Departmental Representative (Dr) Was Also Directed To Serve Separately. At The Very Outset, It Was Observed By The Bench That The Tax Effect Of The Revenue’S Appeal Is Below Rs.10 Lacs

For Appellant: Shri K MohandasFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 268A