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)

Belvedere Tower Condominium Association, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Gurugram

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Belvedere Tower Condominium Vs. Ito, Association, Ward-1(3), Dlf City, Phase Ii, Gurugram. Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan: Aaaab2964K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Gupta, Ca & Shri Sanjesh Jawarani, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2017 Passed By The Cit(A)-, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ground A. By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “A. Addition Of Interest Income Paid On Interest Bearing Maintenance Security Ibms 1. The Assessment Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Addition Made Is Solely Based On Judgment Of Bangalore Club Which Is A Commercial Club Whereas The Assessee Is A Resident Welfare Association (Rwa). 3. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Disregarded The Fact That The Interest Paid To Members Is Out Of Maintenance Security Held Separately For Each Member By Rwa. 4. The Said Interest Paid To Each Members Has Been Made After Deduction Of Tax At Source & Is Offered For Taxation In The Hands Of Members. Addition Made On This Account Will Lead To Double Taxation Which Is Against The Principles Of Taxation.”

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

Patel Goyal Associates, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 132/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Patel Goyal Associates, 501, Fortune House, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune-411004. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aahfp0519N …. Vs. Ito, Judicial (Hq), …. ""यथ" / Respondent Pune. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Kailash Agarwal ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-3, Pune Dated 24.11.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.29,65,196/- U/S 57(Iii) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest U/S 57(Iii). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Interest Paid Ought To Have Been Allowed U/S 57(Iii). For That Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That When The Learned A.O. Has Recorded A Clear Cut Finding In The Assessment Order & Affirmed The Position Taken By The Appellant In Return Of Income That When Interest Is Not Claimed & Also Not Allowable U/S 36(1)(Iii), It Has To Be Allowed U/S 57(Iii). 3. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That When Borrowed Funds Were Not Required For Business Purposes Due To Availability Of Surplus Funds In Regular Business, Interest Is Paid Only To Earn Interest Income & Hence Interest Cannot Be Disallowed U/S 57(Iii).

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57Section 80I