Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.93

Section 57(iii) falls under section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 93 (Deductions) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 93 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 57(iii) is CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (115 ITR 519), cited in 386 of the 716 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 57(iii)

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.

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT
263 ITR 143 · 2003 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property along with incidental use of furniture, fixtures, and common facilities is assessable as 'income from house property' and not 'business income' when the prime object is merely to let out and not to exploit the property as a business asset.

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
58 Taxmann.com 35 · 2015 · High Court
114
citing judgments

When a co-operative society earns interest on deposits with scheduled banks, this income is assessable under "Income from other sources" (Section 56), and the society is entitled to deduct related administrative and proportionate expenses under Section 57 to tax only the net interest income.

Chelmsford Club v. CIT
243 ITR 89 · 2000 · Supreme Court
100
citing judgments

Income arising from mutual activities carried out by clubs or associations solely among their members is not assessable for income tax, as it does not constitute income from a trade or business due to the principle of mutuality.

CIT v. V.P. Gopinathan
248 ITR 449 · 2001 · Supreme Court
66
citing judgments

Interest paid on a loan taken against the security of a fixed deposit cannot be set off against or reduced from the interest income earned on that fixed deposit. The Income-tax Act does not permit such netting.

Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT
324 ITR 396 · 2010 · High Court
66
citing judgments

This case establishes that merely having sufficient interest-free own funds does not automatically prevent interest disallowance on interest-free advances; the assessee must affirmatively prove the business or commercial expediency of such advances.

79 Taxman 378/216 ITR 548 (Bom.) 4. CIT v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd.
52 Taxmann.com 219 · 2014 · High Court
43
citing judgments

If the Revenue accepts the Tribunal's decision for earlier years without challenge, it cannot assail the same decision in subsequent years, provided the facts are similar.

CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah
238 ITR 777 · 1999 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to acquire controlling interest in a company, rather than to earn dividend income, is not allowable as a deduction under section 57(iii) as it is in the nature of capital expenditure.

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT
399 ITR 228 · 2017 · High Court
30
citing judgments

Revision under Section 263 is justified when the Assessing Officer fails to consider a significant portion of a claim, such as depreciation, leading to an erroneous assessment that is prejudicial to the revenue.

CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd.
129 ITR 58 · 1981 · High Court
28
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning income is deductible under Section 57(iii) even if no income is actually earned. The earning of income is not a pre-condition for allowing the deduction.

Judgments on Section 57(iii)

Adi Narayan Gupta, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee dismissed

ITA 35/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Adi Narayan Gupta Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. (Pan:Aaspg3101C) Income Tax, Central Circle- 4(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Subhash Agarwal & Siddharth Agarwal, Advocates Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-21 Appeal No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1037822452(1) Dated 15.12.2021 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S.154 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Central Circle-4(2), Dated 10.03.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac On 15-12-2021 Against The Appeal No.Cit(A), Kolkata-21/11201/2016-17 Is Unwarranted, Arbitrary, Invalid & Bad-In-Law, In So Far As They Are Against The Interest Of The Appellant Company. 2. For That The Ld. Commissioner Appeals Erred In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case By Confirming/Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Additions/Disallowances Made By Ld. Acit Central Circle 4(2), Kolkata, Amounting To Rs.19,50,828/-, Claimed By The Assessee As Expenses On Account Of Interest Paid To Various Loan Creditors. 3. For That The Ld. Commissioner Appeals Erred In Law As Well As In Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Disallowances Of Rs.19,50,828/- Disallowed By Ld. Acit Central Circle 4(2)/Kolkata On The Ground That The Nexus Between

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal & Siddharth AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 57