NETSCRIBES DATA & INSIGHTS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF (PCIT)-8, MUMBAI

The Ld. AR of the appellant gave detailed written submissions before Ld. PCIT stating that there is no bar in claiming deduction under section 80G, under any provisions of I.T. Act and reliance was placed on several decisions of ITAT. The Ld. PCIT did not controvert these decisions as to why the same were not applicable to the facts of the case, but held that the appellant is not eligible to claim the deduction and accordingly set aside the Netscribes Data & Insights P.L.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the appellant raised two grounds, first one being the order under section 263 was passed by Ld. PCIT on the PAN of non-existing entity and hence the order is invalid. The second ground raised by the Ld. AR of the appellant is that this issue is covered in favour of appellant by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT.

The Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. PCIT.

Heard both sides. The first contention is that the order under section 263 was passed by Ld. PCIT on a non-existing PAN which was allotted to the merged entity and hence invalid. The order of Ld. PCIT is perused and found that the PAN was quoted wrongly, but name and address of company was mentioned correctly. Secondly, the Ld. AR of the appellant never brought the same to the notice of Ld. PCIT before passing the order. Hence, this objection is not tenable. The cases-law quoted/relied on by appellant relates where the information was given to AO and still AO passed an assessment order in the name of merged entity whereas here in our case, only PAN was wrongly quoted by mistake, but otherwise it is valid order as the cases relied on appellant are distinguishable on facts.

The second argument is that the issue in question, whether the appellant is eligible for deduction under section 80G which was part of CSR expenditure of company. This issue was dealt with and decided in favour of the appellant company in several decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT Mumbai and other Benches mentioned below:- • ACG Pam Pharma Technologies Private Limited vs. PCIT-4 (01/07/2025)(Mumbai- Trib) • The Ruby Mills Limited vs. PCIT-5 (27/06/2025) (Mumbai- Trib) • Blue Dart Express Limited vs. PCIT-1 (03/09/2024) (Mumbai- Trib) • Alubound Dacs India (P.) Ltd v. DCIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 536 (Mumbai - Trib.)

It was submitted that in all the above decisions, it was held that the appellant is entitled to claim deduction under section 80G of the Act, even though the same is part of CSR expenditure because there is no bar in claiming the expenditure under section 80G of the Act.

Heard both sides. The first condition to assume juri iction under section 263 of the Act is that there should be an ‘error’ and the second condition is the same should cause ‘prejudicial to the interest of Revenue’. It is a settled law that both the conditions should be satisfied to assume the juri iction under section 263 of the Act Malabar Industrial Co. (supra). In the impugned case, there are several decisions in favour of the appellant, as mentioned above and hence, it cannot be said that there is an ‘error’. Hence, the order under section 263 of Ld. PCIT is incorrect and invalid in the eyes of law.

The appeal of appellant is allowed.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.