SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2642/Bang/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21

M/s. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Deputy Commissioner of Prestige Excelsior, Income Tax, Prestige Tech Park, Marathalli Circle – 6(1)(1), Vs. – Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanhalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN: AAICS9204M APPELLANT RESPONDENT

: Sri Nikhil, CA Assessee by : Sri Jeetendra Kumar– CIT Revenue by DR

Date of Hearing : 08-04-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24-06-2026

ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT

ITA No.2642/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 2. The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. Ground No. 4 relates to the chargeability of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 and 4 are dismissed. 3. Ground No. 3 concerns the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund on the ground that it was paid after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute. The assessee contended that such contribution should be treated at par with the employer’s contribution and allowed under section 43B if paid on or before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1). However, this issue is now covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Private Limited. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 is dismissed. 4. The principal issue for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80G in respect of donations made as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure. The assessee submits that the CSR expenditure was already disallowed while computing business income and that the donations were made to institutions holding valid recognition under section 80G. It is therefore contended that the deduction cannot be denied merely because the donations formed part of CSR expenditure.

ITA No.2642/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 7. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80G was not justified. It was further submitted that the assessee had made donations to various institutions, and the relevant details and supporting documents were placed on record. According to the assessee, the recipient institutions were eligible for deduction under section 80G. 8. The learned Departmental Representative, however, supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the expenditure was in the nature of CSR expenditure and, therefore, was not allowable as a deduction under section 80G. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee incurred CSR expenditure of ₹2,04,66,899 during the relevant financial year and disallowed the same while computing its business income. It claimed deduction of ₹1,02,33,452 under section 80G in respect of eligible donations forming part of that expenditure and furnished supporting receipts showing that the donee institutions were recognised under section 80G. 10. Though CSR expenditure is not allowable as business expenditure under section 37 in view of Explanation 2 thereto, there is no statutory bar on allowing deduction under section 80G where the donation is made to an eligible institution and the prescribed conditions are satisfied. 11. The assessee has also furnished evidence that the donations were made through account-payee cheques, as reflected in the receipts issued by the donee institutions. 12. Since the donations were made to recognised institutions, other than clean Ganaga and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, on all other donations, the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80G. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80G on the eligible amount of ₹1,02,33,452. Ground No. 2 is allowed, 13. Appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT

ITA No.2642/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4

Bangalore, Dated, the 24th June, 2026. *TNTS* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore