← All Phrases

“Section 57(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 57Section 57(3)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 57(3) is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 57(3)

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT
227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court
621
citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.
343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
438
citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody
115 ITR 519 · 1978 · Supreme Court
386
citing judgments

For deductions under Section 57(iii) relating to "Income from Other Sources," an expenditure is allowable if it is laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, even if no income is actually earned in that previous year.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)
315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State
200 Taxmann 220 · 2011 · High Court
348
citing judgments

Interest earned by a Co-operative Society from investing fixed deposits in banks is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

Rama Bai v. CIT
181 ITR 400 · 1990 · Supreme Court
258
citing judgments

Interest income is taxable on either an accrual or cash basis, determined by accounting principles. This method was applicable prior to legislative changes that simplified the taxation of interest income.

Judgments citing Section 57(3)

Manju Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

M/S Rajeev Kumar Contractor Pvt.Ltd., Firozabad vs. ACIT., Circle-2(2)(1), Firozabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 744/AGR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 57Section 57(3)

above statutory deductions of depreciation, directors’ salary etc. had been wrongly allowed after rejecting the books and estimation of net profits but also section 57(3) interest deduction against interest income from other sources could not be accepted in the assessee’s favour. 4. Both the learned representative reiterate their

Shree Cheerumba Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Mangaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, we pass the following:

ITA 599/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

kept open. (iv) Matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the cost incurred by the appellant and deduction thereof under Section 57(3) of the Act and to pass orders in accordance with law. (v)Ordered accordingly.” 8. In view of the aforesaid judgment

Shree Cheerumba Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Mangaluru

In the result, we pass the following:

ITA 548/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

kept open. (iv) Matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the cost incurred by the appellant and deduction thereof under Section 57(3) of the Act and to pass orders in accordance with law. (v)Ordered accordingly.” 8. In view of the aforesaid judgment

Shree Cheerumba Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Mangaluru vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, we pass the following:

ITA 547/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

kept open. (iv) Matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the cost incurred by the appellant and deduction thereof under Section 57(3) of the Act and to pass orders in accordance with law. (v)Ordered accordingly.” 8. In view of the aforesaid judgment

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

Shri Vaishnav Plolytechnic College Govn by vs. K Market Tech Education Society, Indorevs.the CIT-CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vaishnav Polytechnic Dcit, Cpc College, Governed By Vsk Bangalore Vs. Technical Education Society (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafts9636P Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri V. Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .10.2023

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 57

allowed the claim of expenses and directed the AO to assessed the income after allowing the expenses as per the provisions of section 57(3) of the Act and the same to be taxed @ 30% on the net income. The Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue of claim

M/S Embassy Inn Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2781/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm Embassy Inn Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner 1St Floor, Of Income Tax, Embassy Point, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 150 Infantry Rod, Bengaluru Bengluru Pan – Aaocs2145R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 57Section 57(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K