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)

Sneha Murli Gulabani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4083/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4083/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sneha Murli Gulabani Asst. Cit-18(3) Legal Heir Of Late Shri Murli Gulabani Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, बनाम/ 2, Vasudeva Building, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400 012 16Th Road, Bandra (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpg 3695 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.12.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 29.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 05.03.2015, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008- 09 Vide Order Dated 24.12.2010. 2 Sneha Murli Gulabani Vs. Asst. Cit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Deepak Nagji Vira, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 268/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 268/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deepak Nagji Vira Ito-10(2)(4), बनाम/ 11, Harichand Mill Compound, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, L.B.S. Marg, Vikroli (W), Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 079 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv 1228 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jay Gala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 20.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.10.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011- 12 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2013. 2. The Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Lent Monies To A Company, Purple Creation P. Ltd., At 12% P.A., During The Year, Earning Interest At Rs.23,82,523/-. The Same Were, However, Financed By Borrowed Capital, On Which Interest Stood Incurred At Rs.31,39,579/-. Besides, The Borrowing Being Through

For Appellant: Shri Jay GalaFor Respondent: Shri Bharati Singh
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57

Nationwide Pharmassist Distribution Pvt. Ltd ( Now Merged With Bigdeal Mercantile P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 7(1)(1)

ITA 5648/MUM/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 1998-1999

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.5648 & 49/Mum/2008,& 5650/Mum/08, िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-1998-99,2000-01 & 2002-03 Nationwide Pharmassist Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(1) Distribution Private Limited Mumbai. (Now Merged With Bigdeal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Nicholas Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. Pan: Aaacn 3346 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Neeraj Seth राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2015 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14-10-2015 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 1961 की धारा 254 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench- Challenging The Order Dated 06.06.2008 Of Cit(A)-Vii,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Neeraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57