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, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. Sri Sanjay Sharma, Bargarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection

ITA 316/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.316/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Vs. Sri Sanjay Sharma, C/O Hotel Maharaja, Ward No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Bargarh-768028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Adqps 4646 H & Cross Objection No.52/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Sri Sanjay Sharma, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, C/O Hotel Maharaja, Ward No.10, Sambalpur Near Govt. Bus Stand, Bargarh-768028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Adqps 4646 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.K.Padhee, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By Learned Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 24.05.2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection. 2. Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Record. 3. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Submitted That The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Not Maintainable As The Tax Effect Involved In The Present Appeal Of 2 & Co No.52/Ctk/2018 Revenue Is Below The Tax Limit Provided By The Cbdt Circular

For Appellant: Shri H.K.Padhee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 268A

ITO, Ward-4(1), Bhubanseswar vs. Shri P.Sambasiva Rao, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the

ITA 80/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.80/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Ito, Ward-4(1), Bhubaneswar Vs. Shri P. Sambasiva Rao, Plot No.237, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Adypr 2224 A & Cross Objection No.12/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Shri P. Sambasiva Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.237, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751009 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Adypr 2224 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhro Das, Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/06/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By Learned Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Submitted That The Tax Effect In The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Less Than Rs.50 Lakhs And, Therefore, In View Of Cbdt Circular No.17/2019 Dated 8Th August, 2019, The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Not Maintainable. 3. Ld. Dr Also Fairly Conceded That No Doubt The Tax Effect Involved In The Appeal Is Less Than Rs.50 Lakhs, Thus, Bound By The Departmental Instruction, However, Ld. Dr Drew Our Attention To Para 10 Of The 2 Co No.20/Ctk/2019

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, DR
Section 268A

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack vs. M/S. Computer Lab, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.211/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. M/S Computer Lab, 2Nd Floor, Meghamala Complex, Bajrakbati Road, Cuttack स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aadfc 0750 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Md. Fayazur Rahman सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By Learned Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 28.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Record. 3. We Find That In The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue, The Tax Effect Is Less Than Rs.50 Lakhs And, Therefore, In View Of Cbdt Circular No.17/2019 Dated 8Th August, 2019, The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Not Maintainable. 4. Ld. Dr Also Fairly Conceded That No Doubt The Tax Effect Involved In The Appeal Is Less Than Rs.50 Lakhs, Thus, Bound By The Departmental

For Appellant: Md. Fayazur RahmanFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 268A