TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 871
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The Petitioner challenges the notice dated 31 March 2021 issued by the first Respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") seeking to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 together with consequential notices and orders and order dated 30 November 2021 rejecting the Petitioner's objections to the reopening of the assessment. 5. The Petitioner filed its return of income on 26 November 2016, declaring a total income of Rs. 26,36,01,64,390/-. The Petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny, and various details were called for via notices dated 19 September 2017, 13 July 2018, 18 September 2018, 24 October 2018 and 03 December 2018. 6. In the notice dated 18 September 2018, the Petitioner was called upon to fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ardcopies of donation receipts and 80 G Certificates will be submitted at your office, as the data is large. During the year under assessment, the Company has claimed deduction of Rs. 181,297,969 under sec 35AC of the Act. Copies of Form No.58A for claiming deduction under sec 35AC in respect of payments made to Lupin Human Welfare & Research Foundation ("LHWRF") and People for Animals is enclosed at Annexure D." 9. After assessing the Petitioner's return, an assessment order under Section 143 (3) was made on 28 December 2018, accepting the claims made by the Petitioner inter alia under Section 35AC and deductions under Section 80G of the IT Act. 10. On 31 March 2021, the impugned notice was issued for the reopening of this a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014, the legislative intention was to ensure that companies with certain strong financials make the expenditure towards this purpose and by allowing deduction, the Government would be subsidizing one third of it by way of revenue foregone thereon and hence the same was required to be disallowed in the assessment. This resulted into underassessment to the same extent. 2.1 Therefore I am of the view that income to the extent of amount of Rs. 18,00,06,832/-, as explained above, has escaped assessment. 3. In view of the above the undersigned has reason to believe that the income exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore proposal for reopening of AY 2016-17 by issuin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 18 (Bombay), struck down the notice seeking to reassess. 14. The coordinate bench relied upon several precedents emanating from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and coordinate benches and held that the assessment could not be reopened merely on a change of opinion. By following the reasons in Castrol India Ltd. (supra) and various precedents referred therein, the impugned notice and consequential orders warrant interference. 15. Mr Suresh Kumar, however, submitted that after the introduction of amendments vide Finance Act No. 2 (2014) w.e.f. 01 April 2015, the CSR expenses were not permitted deductions. He submitted that from this, it was clear that the CSR expenses of Rs. 18,00,06,832/-, which were originally disallowed, given the amendme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 37 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, in order to provide certainty on this issue, it is proposed to clarify that for the purposes of section 37 (1) any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and hence shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment of conditions, if any, specified therein." 18. Objects and reasons do suggest that the CSR expenditure, which is of the nature describ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on must be allowed because there was no tangible fresh material based upon which the assessing officer could have reason to believe that any income had escaped assessment. This is, as noted earlier, a scrutiny case where several queries, including queries particular to this issue, had been raised. The queries were answered by the Petitioners, and upon consideration of all these materials, an assessment order was made under Section 143 (3) of the IT Act. 22. On the ground that some other view was possible, the assessing officer could not have changed his earlier opinion and, based upon such change of opinion, issued the impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment. For all these reasons, the impugned notice and the consequential order....