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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shri Vivek Kumar Agarwal, Kanpur

The appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 188/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit V. Shri Vivek Kumar Agarwal Central Circle 2 128/568, K Block, Kidwai Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aefpa7351B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Fca Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 30/11/2018, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Tax Effect Involved In This Appeal Does Not Exceed Rs.50 Lakhs, Hence This Appeal Filed By The Department Is Not Maintainable In View Of 8Th Cbdt’S Circular No.17/2019, Dated August, 2019, F. No.270/Misc.142/2007-Itj(Pt.) & Is Liable To Be Dismissed As Such. 3. Heard. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Vide Circular No.17/2019, Dated 8Th August, 2019, F. No.270/Misc.142/2007-Itj(Pt.), Has Issued The Direction In Supersession Of The Circular No. 3/2018 Dated 11Th July, 2018, F.No.279 Of Misc.142/2007-Itj (Pt.), In Consonance With The Power Entrusted Under Section 268A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 That No Appeal Should Be Filed Before The Tribunal In Case The Tax

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri P. K. Kapoor, FCA
Section 268A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. M/S. Ramdevi Shantidevi Cold Storage Private Limited, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 659/LKW/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit-6 V. M/S Ramdevi Shantidevi Cold Kanpur Storage Pvt. Ltd. 19 Mig, Shastri Chowk Chauraha Barra-3, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aaecr8133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Respondent By: Shri. Shailendra Sachan, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 9/8/2018, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Tax Effect Involved In This Appeal Does Not Exceed Rs.50 Lakhs, Hence This Appeal Filed By The Department Is Not Maintainable In View Of 8Th Cbdt’S Circular No.17/2019, Dated August, 2019, F. No.270/Misc.142/2007-Itj(Pt.) & Is Liable To Be Dismissed As Such. 3. Heard. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Vide Circular No.17/2019, Dated 8Th August, 2019, F. No.270/Misc.142/2007-Itj(Pt.), Has Issued The Direction In Supersession Of The Circular No. 3/2018 Dated 11Th July, 2018, F.No.279 Of Misc.142/2007-Itj (Pt.), In Consonance With The Power Entrusted Under Section 268A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 That No Appeal Should Be Filed Before The Tribunal In Case The Tax

For Appellant: Shri C. K. Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri. Shailendra Sachan, Advocate
Section 268A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Lucknow vs. M/S. Olumpus Glasses Private Limted, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 613/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Cit V. M/S Olumpus Glasses Pvt. Ltd. Range 5 9/41, Survodaya Colony Lucknow Rana Pratap Marg Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabc08566F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, Fca Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Ii, Lucknow, Dated 28/6/2018, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Tax Effect Involved In This Appeal Does Not Exceed Rs.50 Lakhs, Hence This Appeal Filed By The Department Is Not Maintainable In View Of 8Th Cbdt’S Circular No.17/2019, Dated August, 2019, F. No.270/Misc.142/2007-Itj(Pt.) & Is Liable To Be Dismissed As Such. 3. Heard. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Vide Circular No.17/2019, Dated 8Th August, 2019, F. No.270/Misc.142/2007-Itj(Pt.), Has Issued The Direction In Supersession Of The Circular No. 3/2018 Dated 11Th July, 2018, F.No.279 Of Misc.142/2007-Itj (Pt.), In Consonance With The Power Entrusted Under Section 268A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 That No Appeal Should Be Filed Before The Tribunal In Case The Tax

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Shweta Mittal, FCA
Section 268A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, RG -2, Lucknow vs. Shyamji Agarwal, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 792/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit V. Shri Shyam Ji Agarwal Range 2, Lucknow 10, Natraj Complex 11, B.N. Road, Lalbagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aagpa8896E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Respondent By: Shri Abhishek Khanna, Fca Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Lucknow, Dated 25/9/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Tax Effect Involved In This Appeal Does Not Exceed Rs.50 Lakhs, Hence This Appeal Filed By The Department Is Not Maintainable In View Of 8Th Cbdt’S Circular No.17/2019, Dated August, 2019, F. No.270/Misc.142/2007-Itj(Pt.) & Is Liable To Be Dismissed As Such. 3. Heard. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Vide Circular No.17/2019, Dated 8Th August, 2019, F. No.270/Misc.142/2007-Itj(Pt.), Has Issued The Direction In Supersession Of The Circular No. 3/2018 Dated 11Th July, 2018, F.No.279 Of Misc.142/2007-Itj (Pt.), In Consonance With The Power Entrusted Under Section 268A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 That No Appeal Should Be Filed Before The Tribunal In Case The Tax

For Appellant: Shri C. K. Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Khanna, FCA
Section 268A