TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1037
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the revisionary order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the twin perquisites of initiating revisionary action i.e., the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised was erroneous; and (ii) it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; were lacking simultaneously. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, erred on facts and in law in passing order u/s 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order as against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144 on 29.09.2022 which was passed after in-depth examination, scrutiny and meticulous analysis of the material, information and details placed on record, which cannot be treated as improper enquiries by the Assessing Officer in absence of any new material/ evidence on record of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, failed to appreciate that Explanation 2(a) u/s 263(1) does not justify revision of any order under the guise of enquiries that may be endless. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Principal Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT noted that on perusal of assessment record, it was seen that in the computation of income, the assessee has shown Rs. 70.40 lacs on account Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) expenses. Out of the said amount, the assessee has shown gross eligible deduction under section 80G of Rs. 66.09 lacs and consequently claimed deduction of Rs. 48.54 lacs under section 80G. The assessee made donation to various entities of Rs. 35.09 lacs and claimed 50% of deduction thereof that is Rs. 17,54,723/- under section 80G. The assessee has also made donation to CMRF of Rs. 31,00,000/- and claimed 100% deduction. Thus, the assessee has not made payment of CSR expenses as voluntary. The CSR expenditure by assessee forms part of mandatory requirement of facts and consequently not eligible for deduction under section 80G. Allowing deduction under section 80G will resultantly subsidising such expenses incurred by assessee which is not the intent of Legislature. The assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80G and was required to be added back to the total income of assessee. Accordingly, same needs to be added back to the income of assessee. This resulted under assessment of income. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....022, copy of which placed at page no. 51 to 59 of paper book. The ld. AR invited our attention on question no. 28 of Annexure attached with notice dated 28.06.2022 wherein question with regard to evidence and support of claim of deduction under section 80G of Rs. 48.54 lacs was required. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee vide its reply filed on 06.08.2022 filed complete details including on the question of assessing officer on the deduction under section 80G. Copy of reply is filed at page no. 62 to 63 of paper book and acknowledgement of ITBA portal at page no. 60 & 61. Thus, the assessing officer examined the claim of deduction under section 80G. The assessing officer on examining the issue was fully satisfied and made no addition. The assessing officer while allowing deduction under section 80G took a reasonable plausible and legally sustainable view. The decision taken by assessing officer cannot be classified is erroneous as there are series of decisions wherein it has been held that where assessee claimed deduction under section 80G @ 50% of CSR expenses and the recipient of donations are eligible for donations under section 80G, the claim is eligible for deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under section 80G along with supporting documents. The assessee vide its reply dated 09.08.2022 furnished various details including the detail of examination claimed under section 80G. The assessee also furnished receipt of donations and per Annexure-XII of the reply. The assessee explained that they have claimed deduction of 50% of total donation. As noted above, the assessing officer has not made such references in the assessment order. Thus, assessing officer impliedly accepted the explanation offered by assessee. We find that co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (supra), Vistex Asia Pacific Private Limited (supra) and Axis Securities Limited (supra) consistently allowed deduction under section 80G @ 50% of CSR expenses. We, further, find that this combination in Dalal and Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. No. 2718/Mum/2025 dated 19.06.2025 by considering other decision of Tribunal passed the following order: "6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. On careful perusal of assessment order, we find that case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') : The assessee made certain donation to approved institutions or funds and claimed 50% of the total donation made as deduction u/s 80G. This amount also formed part of the CSR initiative of the assessee company which amounts to INR 22,81,29,964/-. It is observed that the assessee has duly disallowed CSR expenditure of INR 22,81,29,964/-debited to the statement of profit and loss under section 37 of the Act. DRP rejected the claim of the assessee by saying that the donation is pursuant to the CSR policy of the company and lacks the test of voluntariness as required under section 80G. The AO has disallowed the claim on the ground that anything donation over and above the CSR u/s 80G will be only allowed as the CSR expense is not an allowable expense u/s 37 of the Act. Ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions :- JMS Mining (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 118/190 ITD 702/91 ITR(T) 80 (Kolkata - Trib.) Goldman Sachs Services (P) Ltd. v. JCIT (2020) ([2020] 117 taxmann.com 535 (Bangalore - Trib.) ) (ITAT Bangalore) (iii) First American (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1762/Bang/2019) ....