AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r took Rs. 1,64,17,30,653/- as variation with respect to the TP adjustment. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the draft assessment order determining the total income at Rs. 338,51,08,520/- by making certain other additions. 3. The assessee approached the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) who deleted the TP adjustment of Rs. 1,64,17,30,653/-. So far as the other additions made by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order are concerned, the DRP gave part relief to the assessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the final order on 13.06.2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,74,32,07,350/- by making the following additions: S No. Description Amount (in INR) 1 Income as per Return of income filed 167,30,95,140/- 2 Income as computed u/s143(1)(a) 171,08,51,010/- 3 Variation in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act 1,57,55,750/- 4 Addition u/s 41 of the Act 6,66,765/- 5 Education cess 1,59,33,528/- 6 Total variations made 3,23,56,340/- 7 Total Income 174,32,07,350/- 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 154 of the Act deleti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant in respect of a trading liability and the provisions of Section 41 of the Act are not applicable. III. The learned AO/ DRP erred in declining to deal with the grievance of the appellant relating to the variations incorporated and effectively added in the recomputed total income in the draft assessment order pursuant to the variations made by the CPC at the time of processing of appellant's return of income. Learned DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that its jurisdiction very much pertained to looking into said variations which had crept in the draft assessment order by way of addition of total amount thereof to total income and the learned DRP had requisite powers to affirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order as per the provisions of Section 144C(8). IV. The learned AO erred in not allowing the credit of taxes (refund) adjusted against the interest charged us 115P of Rs. 1,97,07,060/- The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw the grounds of appeal. 6. The first issue raised by the assessee in grounds of appeal is regarding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80G of the Act qua the CSR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 80G have been satisfied and not in dispute, the Appellant is eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act. The institution to whom the Donations are made are duly registered under section 80G(5) of the Act * The CSR expenditure is not allowed only for the purpose of section 37 for computing business income. If such expenditure is otherwise allowable as deduction under other provisions of the Act, the same cannot be disturbed. * The donations/expenditure made by the Appellant is towards women empowerment, education, environmental research etc. and forms part of CSR expenditure as per Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013. * The legislature has restricted the benefit only in two specific cases being "Swachh Bharat Kosh" ("SBK") and "Clean Ganga Fund" ("CGF") as per subclause (iiihk) and (iiihl) of section 80G(2)(a) of the Act, thereby implying that CSR contribution to other eligible institution qualifies for deduction under section 80G of the Act. The Appellant has made CSR contribution to funds other than SBK and CGF, thus, claim under section 80G of the Act shall be allowed. * The said claim, as discussed above, is supported by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 80G, deductions are considered at the stage of computing "Total taxable income". Even if any payments under section 80G forms part of CSR payments ( keeping in mind ineligible deduction expressly provided u/s. 80G), the same would already stand excluded while computing, Income under the head, "Income form Business and Profession". The effect of such disallowance would lead to increase in Business income. Thereafter benefit accruing to assessee under Chapter VIA for computing "Total Taxable Income" cannot be denied to assessee, subject to fulfillment of necessary conditions therein. 17. We therefore do not agree with arguments advanced by Ld.Sr.DR. 18. In present facts of case, Ld.AR submitted that all payments forming part of CSR does not form part of profit and loss account for computing Income under the head, "Income from Business and Profession". It has been submitted that some payments forming part of CSR were claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act, for computing "Total taxable income", which has been disallowed by authorities below. In our view, assessee cannot be denied the benefit of claim under Chapter VI A, which is considered for comput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue's only argument is that once the impugned expenditure is not allowable u/sec.37 of the Act; the same is also not exigible to sec.80G deduction as well. We find no substance in Revenue's instant sole substantive grievance as the Ld. CIT(A)'s detailed discussion has considered a catena of case law of various judicial forums (supra) already accepting the very issue in assessee's favour and against the department. We thus adopt judicial consistency herein as well to uphold the Ld. CIT(A)'s detailed discussion accepting the assessee's sec.80G deduction claim. Rejected accordingly." 9. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Credit Suisse Services (India) Private Limited (supra) and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue to take a different view, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue and allow the appeal of the assessee." 9. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Advik Hi Tech (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) which in turn has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Credit Suisse Services (Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amount of Rs. 6,66,765/-u/s 41(1) consisting of Rs. 51,310/- on the ground that the GST invoices were available and details could have been accessed from GST network and the other amount of Rs. 6,15,455/- on the ground that outstanding balance in the appellant's books in respect of the vendor was Rs. 6,87,088/-. The learned AO and DRP failed to appreciate that the appellant had neither claimed the deduction of the said amounts nor accrued or incurred any debt/ liability thereof to pay the amounts to the vendors and information viz. on GST network or the outstanding balance did not substantiate or justify the unilateral decision of the vendor/s to write off amount as so called bad debt. 5. The Ld. AO and DRP failed to appreciate that unilateral write off by the vendor of the appellant company does not ipso facto result in any benefit enduring in the hands of the appellant in respect of a trading liability and the provisions of Section 41 of the Act are not applicable." Our Prayer 1. Subsequent to the passing of the assessment order dated 13.06.2024, Goldy Precision Stamping P Ltd. (GSP) vide its letter dated 3.10.2024 confirmed that the go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore Your Honours." 14. He submitted that since the above details go to the root of the matter for deciding the issue, therefore, these additional evidences should be admitted and a proper decision may be taken. 15. The Ld. DR on the other hand opposed the admission of the additional evidences. In his alternate contention, he submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the same and take a view. 16. After hearing both sides we find the additional evidences filed by the assessee go to the root of the matter. We, therefore, admit the same and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the same and pass an appropriate order as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The second issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The third issue raised by the assessee relates to the order of the DRP in not adjudicating on the variation made by the CPC vide Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and which ultimately culminated in and merged into the addition to total income determined....