Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.93

Section 57(iv) 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(iv) is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 of the 279 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 57(iv)

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.

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. 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.

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.

CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya
91 Taxmann.com 20 · 2018 · Supreme Court
205
citing judgments

Interest on enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the compensation, not merely interest income, and is exigible to tax on a receipt basis.

V.M.Salgaocar & Bros.(P) Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 383 · 2000 · Supreme Court
189
citing judgments

An order by the Supreme Court dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute a declaration of law or a binding precedent. Such dismissal in limine offers no legal assistance.

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills
296 ITR 238 · 2008 · High Court
180
citing judgments

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT
161 Taxmann.com 301 · 2024 · High Court
178
citing judgments

Interest received as enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for compulsory acquisition of land is taxable as "income from other sources" under Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is not exempt under Section 10(37).

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.
331 ITR 192 · 2011 · High Court
152
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has taken one of two possible views on a debatable issue during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi
296 ITR 292 · 2008 · High Court
145
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 for being erroneous due to a perceived lack of enquiry if the Assessing Officer has already conducted an enquiry, applied their mind, and accepted the assessee's explanation.

Judgments on Section 57(iv)

Randhir Singh, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, Yamunanagar

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 661/CHANDI/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.661/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Randhir Singh Ito बनाम/ Vs. Village Manakpur, Po Udhamgarh Ward – 3, Yamuna Nagar Yamuna Nagar, Haryana – 135003 Haryana – 135003 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brbps-5290-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vibhore Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-09-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 22-09-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Cit(A)] Dated 11.02.2026 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 28.03.2022. 2. During Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noted By Ld. Ao That The Assessee Received Interest On Enhanced Compensation Of Rs.68.64 Lacs From District Revenue Officer U/S 28 Of Land Acquisition Act. Due

For Appellant: Sh. Vibhore Garg (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 194ASection 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Sandeep, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2392/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmansandeep, Vs. Ito, Ward 1, Village Badhkhalsa, Sonipat. Ps Rai, Sonipat – 131 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ajmpr1910R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Jain, Advocate Shri Samyak Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2026 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 08.01.2026 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Not Filed Its Return Of Income. Based On The Above, Assessment Was Reopened. Based On The Information Available On Aims Module, The Assessee Has Received Cash Of 2 Rs.35,33,013/- On Account Of Interest Under Section 194A Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Accordingly Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued & Served On The Assessee. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income As Required Under Section 148 Of The Act On 30.10.2021 Electronically Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,03,687/-. Accordingly Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. During Assessment Proceedings, Ao Observed That Assessee Has Received Enhanced Interest Income From Land Acquisition Officer Of An Amount Of Rs.36,33,013/- On Which Tds Under Section 194A Was Deducted. He Observed That Assessee Has Claimed The Same As Exempt Income In Its Return Of Income. When The Details Were Called For, Assessee Has Submitted As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 28Section 34