Section 57 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.93

Section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State (200 Taxmann 220), cited in 348 of the 1,225 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 57

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.

Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer
154 Taxmann.com 305 · 2023 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

Section 80P(4) is not applicable to a cooperative bank unless it is classified as a 'bank' under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. For cooperative banks not meeting this definition, the deduction for interest earned from investments in cooperative societies is available under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd.
226 ITR 97 · 1997 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

The doctrine of mutuality applies only when there is complete identity between the contributors to a common fund and the participants in its surplus. Income received from non-members or distinct classes of members who do not share this identity is not covered by mutuality and is taxable.

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.

CIT v. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank
251 ITR 194 · 2001 · Supreme Court
106
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a co-operative bank from statutory investments or mandatory deposits, which are essential for conducting its banking business, qualifies as business income and is exempt under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

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.

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.

Seth R. Dalmia v. CIT
110 ITR 644 · 1977 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

An indirect connection between expenditure and income can be sufficient to establish the required nexus for deductibility under Section 57(iii). The connection need not be direct.

254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT
295 ITR 466 · 2007 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record that prejudices a party is rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act.

Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Anr.
314 ITR 275 · 2009 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Reopening an assessment based on a mere change of opinion, without any tangible material, is invalid. The Assessing Officer cannot withdraw an issue after considering the assessee's reply and then re-open the case on the same grounds.

Judgments on Section 57

Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for all the assessment year stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3288/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 22Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for all the assessment year stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3287/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 22Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for all the assessment year stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3286/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 22Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S Gurukrupa Group Logistic Services, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2032/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 250Section 57

ACIT, Cir.20(1), Mumbai vs. Girish Shamji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 3123/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57Section 68

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut vs. Maliyana Cooperative Cane Developement Union, Gorakhpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3706/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraasstt. Yr: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)

Venkatachalam Ramakrishnan, Trichy vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2038/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2038/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Venkatachalam Ramakrishnan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of C-104, Bhel Nagar, Thuvakudi, Income Tax, Trichy 620 014. Circle 3(1), Trichy. [Pan:Adapr1611D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 450 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 57

Shri Amitkumar Jasvantlal Doshi, Surendranagar vs. The DCIT, Cir.-4 (1) (1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 842/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 842/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Jasvantlal Doshi Cit(Appeals), Nfac-Delhi, Vs. 16, Ashok Nagar Society, Meghani Road, Dcit, Circ – 4(1)(1), Surendranagar-363001 Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpd3668C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krunal Karia, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Krunal Karia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd Vikramjot Basti, Vikramjot vs. Inocme Tax Officer Basti -New, Income Tax Office Basti

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 486/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Mahesh Nanji Gami, Navi Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1560/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1560/Mum/2025

For Appellant: Shri Khushiram Jhadwani, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 36Section 57

Pratima Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 232/MUM/2025[1992-1993]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 1992-1993

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 1992-1993 Pratima Hitesh Mehta Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 32, Madhuli Apartment, Income-Tax, Cc -4(1), 3Rd Floor, Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai - 400018 [Pan: Abnpm8226G] Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh, Advocates Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel (Special Counsel For Dept.) Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-52, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070774879(1), Dated 29.11.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Cc-4(1), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 19.07.2024 For Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Partly Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act Dated 19.07.2024. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Which Is Time Barred & Hence Void.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah and Ms. Mitali Parekh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Special Counsel for Dept.)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 220Section 234D

Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 917/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(ix)Section 57

Friends Transport Carrier, Jagraon vs. ITO, Jagraon

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 951/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.951/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Friends Transport Carrier Ito Shop No. 6. Moga Road Jagraon बनाम/ Vs. Near Swaraj Tractor Agency, Jagraon, Punjab Punjab – 142026 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagff-7789-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 08-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 144 Of The Act On 20-09-2022. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Was Heard With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Sr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 44ASection 57

Sandeep Kumar Singh, Singrauli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Singrauli

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

ITA 7/JAB/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Sandeep Kumar Singh, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax B. 8/116, Sect. 15, Nigahi Colony, (Appeals) Nigahi, Singrauli Pan:Bvips2456Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 30.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 23.09.2022, Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, The Order Of Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Based On Incorrect Revised I.T. Return. 2. Because, The Income Offered U/S. 56 & Deduction Claimed U/S. 57 Of The Income Tax In Revised Lt. Return Does Not Relates To The Assessee. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer & The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Making Disallowance / Addition Of Rs.51,42,446/-. 4. Because, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Facts In Giving Finding That "Entire Tds Credit Of Rs.81,729/- Relatable To Total Receipts Of Rs.56,61,867/- (Rs.55,09,367 + Rs.1,52,500) Is Claimed In Revised Return. Thus, It Is Clear That Whatever Income Admitted In Revised Return Is Not Randomly Admitted But Based On 16A Certificate Issued By Deductor M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd.

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 56Section 57Section 58

Ghanshyam Arjanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 829/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 57

Govindegowda Ramegowda, Mandya vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 925/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

Gowdahally Lingegowda Lakshmegowda, Mandya vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 924/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

Kadalur Ramakrishna Mahesha, Mandya vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 923/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3373/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Dcit, Circle-20(1), A/1901-1902, Piramal Chambers, Vardhman Heights, Vs. Dr.Ss Rao Marg, Tb Kadam Marg, Parel, Byculla (East), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400027. Pan : Aarpj1996K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr. Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 272A(1)Section 274Section 37(1)Section 57

Neeraj Nath, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1519/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 57