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 8(1), Mumbai vs. Alka India Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6696/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6696/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit, Range-8(1), Alka India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 260-A, 2Nd Floor, E-211, Crystal Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Opp. Infinity Mall, New Link Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabca 6702 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mohd. Javed ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Narayan Swami सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.05.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.05.2016 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)-16, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 13.8.2013, 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. At The Very Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ar), The Assessee’S Counsel, Shri Narayan Swami (Adducing A Working Of The Tax Impact Of The Instant Appeal, Showing The Same At Rs.8,52,862/-) 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.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. JavedFor Respondent: Shri Narayan Swami
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

ITO 23(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Kanji Deva Patel, Mumbai

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

ITA 4877/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4877/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Ito-23(2)(4), Kanji Deva Patel बनाम/ R. No. 205, C-10, 2Nd Floor, Bkc, K-504, 2Nd Vardhaman Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51 Dr. R. P. Nagar, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpp 5092 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Arju Garodia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.05.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 17.05.2016 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)-19, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 03.4.2013, 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.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 26.12.2007. 2. At The Very Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ar), The Assessee’S Counsel, Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi, 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. Departmental

For Appellant: Ms. Arju GarodiaFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi
Section 143(3)Section 268A