MORGAN STANLEY ADVANTAGE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the deduction u/s. 80G is allowable even if the expenses were initially claimed as CSR, following coordinate benches. The issue of limitation was not adjudicated, and the ALP adjustment was dismissed based on a subsequent Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement.
What were the facts?
The appellant claimed deduction u/s. 80G for 'Corporate Social Expenses', which was disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the DRP. The appellant also challenged the assessment order's limitation and an adjustment to Arm's Length Price (ALP).
What were the issues?
Whether deduction u/s. 80G for CSR expenses is allowable, and if an ALP adjustment is valid post a Bilateral APA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- ACIT v. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd.20 citing173 Taxmann.com 366 · 2025 · ITAT
- DCIT v. Gabriel India18 citing173 Taxmann.com 219 · 2025
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “J” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri Pawan Singh (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-
In the above cited appeal, the appellant raised the grounds – viz., the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation, deduction u/s. 80G is not granted, the adjustment to Arm’s Length Price (ALP) is incorrect and initiation of penalty is not correct.
The first ground relates to passing of assessment order beyond time limitation prescribed under the Act. The Ld. AR of appellant company raised a ground that the final assessment order was passed after 30th September, 2023 and hence based by limitation and hence to be quashed. During the hearing proceedings, the Ld. AR has requested the Bench to keep the issue open and pass the Order on merits on other issue
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Dalal and Broacha Stock Broking Pvt Ltd… vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, MumbaiMumbai23 Jun 2025Allowed
Also relies on DCIT v. Gabriel India and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view, allowing 50% of donation under Section 80G out of CSR expenses, was in line with various Tribunal decisions and thus not erroneous. The Pr. CIT's revision order was qu...
- Abm Knowledgeware Limited, Mumbai vs Assessing Officer Circle 4(1)(1), MumbaiMumbai31 Jul 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under section 263. The Tribunal found that CSR expenses, while mandatory under the Companies Act, 2013, do not form part of the profit and loss accou...
- B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt… vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3…Mumbai25 Jul 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263. The Tribunal reasoned that payments forming part of CSR expenditure do not form part of the profit and loss account for computing income under the head 'Prof...
- Glitch Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Mumbai24 Jul 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on ACIT v. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd.
The Tribunal allowed Ground Nos. 3-4, holding that deduction under Section 80G cannot be denied merely because the payment forms part of CSR spending, provided the institution is eligible and other conditions are met. Th...
- DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs Adani Logistics Ltd, AhmedabadAhmedabad12 Feb 2026Dismissed
Also relies on DCIT v. Gabriel India
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, reasoning that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year, and the Explanation to Section 14A (w.e.f. 01.04.2022) i...
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
