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

Siddhi Vinayaka Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita, Kalaburagi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 140/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice – & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 56Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 8o

Siddhi Vinayaka Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita, Kalaburagi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 139/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice - & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 56Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. The Sardar Patel Co Opertaive Credit Society Limited, Vijapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is

ITA 526/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Hasmukh V Doshi & Sh. Mehal H DoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. The Sardar Patel Co Opertaive Credit Society Limited, Vijapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is

ITA 525/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Hasmukh V Doshi & Sh. Mehal H DoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S. Mangalore Yanthrika Meenugarara Prathamika Sahakari Sangha, Mangaluru vs. Ncome Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1098/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)
Section 234Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S. Mangalore Yanthrika Meenugarara Prathamika Sahakari Sangha, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 1097/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 234Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S. Mangalore Yanthrika Meenugarara Prathamika Sahakari Sangha, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1096/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)
Section 234Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Srinivasa Rao Inuganti, Mylavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 28/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.28/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Inuganti Vs. Income Tax Officer Sy.No.537/5, S.V.S.Nager Ward-3(1) Mylavaram Vijayawada Ntr District [Pan : Abdpi5709C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 57Section 69A

Microsoft India (R&D) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1640/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 40Section 56

Microsoft India (R&D) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1483/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 40Section 56

Sant Shankar Maharaj Ashram, Amravati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/NAG/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 334/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram 01, Pimpal Khuta, Dhamangaon, Amravati-444905. Pan: Aahts0026K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Mahavir Atal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr K C Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250

The Agriculture Development Co.Op.Credit Society Ltd., Sidhpur vs. The ITO, Patan Ward-1, Unjha

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose purposes

ITA 231/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(4)

The Agriculture Development Co.Op.Credit Society Ltd., Sidhpur vs. The ITO, Patan Ward-4, Unjha

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose purposes

ITA 230/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(4)

Viaton Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1280/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)

Mohsin Enterprises Private Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officr, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57

Balaji Infrastructure & Development Co., Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1616/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbalaji Infrastructure & Development Company Limited, 6Th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A. K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaacb8155C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-2(1) (1), R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sujay Waikul, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivas, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 24Section 250Section 271(1)Section 32(1)Section 57

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

Surinder Kumar Daima, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1848/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 57

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

Mr. Ramesh Madan Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 3657/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita No. 3643, 3657, 3656, 3642 & 3641/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17 Mr. Ramesh Madan Patel, Income Tax Department, 14/A, Sahakar Nagar, Saibaba Old Cgo Annxe Building, Nagar, 1St Floor, Chembur Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, New Ground, Shell Colony Road, Marine Lines, Chembur East-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Alqpp 8241 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka KashilkarFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR