TOWNSHIP REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited 3. Facts in brief are that the ld.PCIT based on certain audit objection noted that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee was allowed deduction of Corporate Social Responsibility(‘CSR’) expenses claimed u/s 80G of the Act. As per the computation of income initially CSR expense were disallowed amounting to Rs 40,63,000/- by the assessee but deduction of Rs 20,31,000/- was claimed u/s 80G of the said payments. He observed that although the AO had called for relevant details for verification of deduction u/s 80G of the Act he did not examine the issue of CSR expenditure. Therefore, he opined that in terms of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, the assessment order made u/s 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In response to the show cause issued in this regard, the assessee claimed that there is no bar in claiming deduction u/s 80G of the Act in respect of such CSR contribution subject to the provisions of the Act. He placed reliance on decisions of various coordinate benches of ITAT where similar claims have been consistently allowed.

P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited 6. We have carefully considered all relevant facts of the case, rival submissions and also the contents of the revisions order and the paper book submitted. We find that the issue of deduction of CSR expenses claimed u/s 80G was open for adjudication before the AO. We observed that the assessee had duly disclosed such facts on record during assessment proceedings and the AO taking note of such disclosed facts with specific reference to CSR expenditure claimed as deduction, preferred to allow the claim of the assessee u/s 80G of the Act. Therefore, on facts and the circumstances of the case, it can be safely construed that the issue must have been deliberated by the AO though not specifically brought out in the body of the assessment order. Thus, the AO has considered the issue and allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80G in respect of CSR expenses which is a plausible view taken by him.

6.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Ltd. v. CIT (supra) have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT. The twin conditions are that the order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the following circumstances, the order of the AO can be held to be erroneous order, that is (i) if the Assessing Officer's order was P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited passed on incorrect assumption of fact; or (ii) incorrect application of law, or (iii) Assessing Officer's order is in violation of the principle of natural justice, or (iv) if the order is passed by the AO without application of mind. (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; because AO has to discharge dual role of an investigator as well as that of an adjudicator then in aforesaid any event the order passed by the AO can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined as to whether the actions of the AO can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. When this aspect is examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Their Lordship held when the AO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue "unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law". Thus, in our considered view following Apex Court ruling the Revision orders passed by Ld. PCIT are not sustainable in law. Reference could also be made to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom)(HC) with regard to assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT in the para below:

P a g e | 7 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited "12. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decisions is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualized where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. It is because the Income-tax Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case that in the opinion of the Commissioner the order in question is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. But that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo-motu revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent." (Emphasis supplied)

6.2 Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are worth noting:

12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for the revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in P a g e | 8 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry".If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open". 6.3 On merits of the case, whether the CSR expenditure is allowable u/s. 80G of the Act is also no more res integra by a catena of decisions by various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal.The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alubond Dacs India (P.) Ltd.in (2024) 163 taxmann. com 536 (Mum)considered the provisions of Companies Act and I.T. Act and held as follows:

"11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The only morn question to be decided here is whether the expenditure towards CSR activities are an allowable deduction us 80G of the Act. The CSR expenses are governed by section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, Schedule VII of the Act and Companies (CSR) Policy Rules, 2014 where companies having net worth of Rs 500 crores of more or turnover of Rs. 1000 crores or more or net profit of Rs 5 crores of more have to mandatorily comply with the CSR provisions specified us. 135(1) of the Companies Act, 2011. The above mentioned companies are liable to spend atleast 25% of its average net profit for the immediately preceding three financial years on CSR activities. In the present case, the assessee has contributed Rs 30 lacs to various educational and charitable trust for which the assessee has claimed 50% of the total donation paid as deduction u/s. 800 of the Act. Prior to the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, the said expenditure was claimed as 'business expenditure' u/s. 37(1) of the Act where after the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business or profession. It is observed that the said expenses pertaining to CSR has been claimed as deduction u/s. 80G of the Act which claim was perennially rejected by the Revenue for the reason that only donations which are voluntary in nature will come under the purview of section 80G of the Act and donation towards CSR was merely a statutory obligation on companies as per section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is pertinent to point out that the intention of the legislature was clear when the same was clarified by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 that CSR expenses will not fall under the business expenditure and also there has been an express bar specified in sub clause (iiihk) and (iiihl) of section 80G(2)(a) of the Act that any sum paid by the assessee as donation to Swatch Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund will not come under the purview of deduction u's 80G of the Act subject to certain conditions. This justifies the fact that the other donations specified us 80G of the Act would be entitled to deduction provided the conditions stipulated u/s. 80G of the Act are satisfied. In the present case in hand, the contributions made by the assessee would not fall under the two exceptions specified above which clearly mandates that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for the donations contributed during the year under consideration u/s 80G of the Act. The decision relied upon by the ld. A.O in the case of PVG Raju (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the present case where there is no requirement P a g e | 9 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited of proving the voluntariness of the donation contributed by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s. 80G of the Act. The amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2015 to section 80G of the Act which had inserted the sub clauses (iiihk) and (iiihl) to be the exception for qualifying a donation for claiming us. 80G of the Act could also be an evidencing factor to substantiate that CSR expenditures which falls under the nature specified in section 30 to 36 of the Act are an allowable deduction u/s 80G of the Act.

"7.3 As we take notice of the fact that Parliament legislated that CSR expenses would not be eligible for deduction as business expenditure under section 37 of the Act by inserting Explanation 2 to section 37(1) vide the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 (applicable from the assessment year 2015-16), which provided that any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to CSR referred to in section 135 of the CA 2011, shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by an assessee for the purpose of business or profession and shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the IT Act. The intent of Parliament in bringing the aforesaid provision is given in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 and is reproduced as under; "CSR expenditure, being an application of income, is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of carrying on business. As the application of income is not allowed as deduction for the purposes of computing taxable income of a company, amount spent on CSR cannot be allowed as deduction for computing the taxable income of the company. Moreover, the objective of CSR is to share burden of the Government in providing social services by companies having net worth/turnover/profit above a threshold. If such expenses are allowed as tax deduction, this would result in subsidizing of around one-third of such expenses by the Government by way of tax expenditure." 7.4 The aforesaid explanatory memorandum categorically expresses the legislative intent and the rationale of disallowance of CSR expenditure referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, that such expenditure is application of income and not incurred for the purposes of business. We are of considered view that this in itself justifies the grant of deduction u/s 80G. As CSR expenditure is application of income of the assessee under the Income Tax Act, that means it continues to form part of the Total income of the assessee. Section 80G(1) of the Act provides that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be deducted, in accordance with the provisions of this section, such sum paid by the assessee in the previous P a g e | 10 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited year as a donation. Further, section 80G(2) lists down the suns on which deduction shall be allowed to the assessee. Section 80G falls in Chapter VIA, which comes into play only after the gross total income has been computed by applying the computation provisions under various heads of income, including the Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, there is no correlation between suo- moto disallowance in section 37(1) and claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act.

7.5 As with regard to the reasoning that CSR expenditure are not voluntary but mandatory in nature due to penal consequences, we are of considered view that voluntary nature of donation is by nature of fact that it is not on the basis of any reciprocal promise of donee. The CSR expenditures are also without any reciprocal commitment from beneficiary being philanthropic in nature. The Act permits deduction of donations as per Section 80G of the Act, even though, assessee is not gaining any benefit out of any reciprocity from donee. Similar is the case of CSR expenditure. Thus the reasoning of learned Tax Authority, the CSR expenditure is mandatory, does not justify disallowance of these expenditures u/s 80G, if other conditions of section 80G are fulfilled. There is no allegation of Revenue that other conditions of Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground."

6.5 In a recent decision in the case of The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai vs PCIT on 27 June, 2025 in coordinate bench while dealing with similar issue held as under:

“6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by both the parties. We find that assessment in the present case was completed on 19.02.2022. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made various disallowanc. However, there is no discussion about the issue identified by ld. Pr. CIT while exercising his jurisdiction under section 263. However, on perusal of notices under section 142(1) dated 8.06.2022, we find that assessing officer sought explanation on various issues including on the deduction 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 The Ruby Mills Limited 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 large amount of donation. No doubt that the assessing officer during the assessment examined the issue and disallowed donation under section 80G to Urvashi Foundations. Though, there is no discussion about the donation to other charitable trust or institution, however the assessing officer has sought details of donations to all about such charitable trust and institution. We find that the assessee also furnished all required details to the assessing officer. Thus, the assessing officer impliedly accepted the P a g e | 11 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited donation to such charitable trust or institution. We find that recently Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT Vs Gabriel India (2025) 173 taxmann.com 219 (Mum) on similar issue where the assessee-company claimed deduction under section 80G at the rate of 50% of CSR expenses and furnished receipts of donees evidencing eligibility of deduction under section 80G allowed claim of such assessee. The tribunal while allowing relief to the assessee followed various other decisions of the different benches of the Tribunal. The relevant part of the decision if extracted below. "7.After giving a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below, we are of the considered view that the Coordinate Benches have been consistently taking the stand that 80G deduction cannot be denied. The relevant findings in the case of Ericsson India Global Services (P) Ltd. (supra), read as under:- "7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to case laws cited before us. Undisputedly, expenditure incurred towards CSR is specifically prohibited from being allowed as deduction towards business expenditure by insertion of Explanation - 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f01.04.2015. However, there is no such Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT corresponding amendment to section 80G of the Act. Only condition for claiming deduction under section 80G of the Act as per the existing provision is the institute to which donation is made must have been registered under section 80G of the Act. Once the aforesaid condition is fulfilled, the donor is entitled to avail the deduction. This is also the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The relevant observation are as under: "17. Apropos the issue of disallowance 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) Allegis Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1693 /Bang/ 2019) Ld. Counsel further submitted that if the intention was to deny deduction of CSR expenses under section 80G, appropriate amendments on lines of section 37(1) should also have been made The Ruby Mills Limited under section 80G of the Act. In the absence of any such amendment, CSR expenses should not be disallowed under section 80G of the Act.

8. Before us, it is the specific contention of learned Counsel of the assessee that the institutes to whom the assessee has donated the CRS fund are registered under section 80G of the Act. Keeping in view the submissions of the assessee as well as the ratio laid down in the judicial precedents cited before us, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee's claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act, subject to, factual verification of assessee's claim that the donee institutions are registered under section 80G of the Act and other conditions of section 80G of the Act are fulfilled. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes."

8. The facts of the case in hand show that the assessee has submitted the receipts of the donees evidencing the eligibility of deduction u/s 80G of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). The decision relied upon by the ld. D/R is on different reasoning as the Co-ordinate Bench was of the opinion that CSR expenses cannot be allowed u/s 37(1) of the Act, therefore, no deduction is allowed u/s 80G, whereas in the case in hand, assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80G and not u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, is also dismissed.

9.In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed."

Considering the fact that view taken by assessing officer while allowing 50% of donation under section 80G out of CSR expenses are in accordance with the decisions of various benches of Tribunal. Thus, the view taken by assessing officer cannot be said to be erroneous. Thus, the pre-requisite twin conditions for exercising jurisdiction under section 263 has not meet out in the present case hence we quash / set aside the order of Pr. CIT dated 17.03.2025. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed.

7. In the case under consideration, the proposed revision is sought to be done merely on change of opinion disagreeing with the opinion of the AO that the expenditure is not deductible under sec 80G of the Act. Further, it is a settled position of law that where there are two P a g e | 13 A.Y. 2020-21 Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited views possible and the AO has adopted one of the two possible views, then the order cannot be held to be erroneous/ prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby proceedings under section 263 of the Act cannot not be sustained. We find that in accepting the claim of donation under section 80G @ 50% of total donation in the assessment order is not erroneous as the action of the AO is legally sustainable view. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding paras, the deduction of CSR expenses under section 80G of the Act is held allowable consistently by the courts. Hence, both on legal ground as also on merits, appeal of the assessee has sufficient force. Therefore, respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hereby quash the Revision order as unsustainable, allowing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19/09/2025. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)