DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. GIVE FOUNDATION, BENGALURU

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has filed this appeal in the case of Give Foundation (assessee/respondent) for assessment year 2022-23, challenging the order dated 2 December 2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). By that order, the NFAC partly allowed the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order dated 27 March 2024, passed by the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department (the learned AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act..

The AO has raised the following grounds of appeal:

On facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,95,11,403 made by the Assessing Officer by denying exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the clear violation of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of the Act.

The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee paid remuneration of Rs. 87,48,000 to its Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Atul Satija, who is a specified person under section 13(3) of the Act, holding substantial shareholding in the assessee company, thereby attracting the provisions of section 13(1)(c).

The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer did not establish excessiveness OR unreasonableness of remuneration, without appreciating that the sudden and abnormal increase in remuneration in the fourth quarter itself constituted sufficient material for invoking section 13(2)(c) of the Act.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding payment of bonus of Rs. 30 lakh without any contemporaneous evidence, board resolution, performance metrics or comparative data to establish the reasonableness of such payment.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that shareholding in a section 8 company does not amount to beneficial interest, ignoring the fact that control and influence over management decisions, including fixation of remuneration, squarely falls within the mischief of section 13(3).

The learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the applicability of section 13(1)(c) by holding that exemption can be denied only to the extent of benefit derived by the specified person, contrary to the scheme of section 11 read with section 13, which mandates denial of exemption where income is applied for the benefit of specified persons.

The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once provisions of section 13(1)(c) are attracted, the assessee forfeits entitlement to exemption under section 11, including accumulation under section 11(1)(a).

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition without rebutting the findings of the Assessing Officer regarding violation of statutory safeguards intended to prevent diversion of charitable funds to interested persons.

The order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous in law, contrary to the facts of the case and unsustainable, and therefore liable to be set aside.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

The assessee, incorporated on 28 February 2000, is registered under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, and section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, with approval under section 80G. Its objects include education, poverty relief and environmental preservation, pursued directly or by funding other organisations. Its return declaring nil income was selected for scrutiny, and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 1 June 2023. On examining Form No. 16 issued to Mr Atul Satija, the learned Assessing Officer noted that his quarterly salary increased from ₹ 1,487,004 to ₹ 4,437,000 in the final quarter. The AO further noted that Mr Satija held 80% of the company’s shares and was therefore covered by section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee claimed a carry-forward of ₹ 59,511,403, being excess income over expenditure, by opting out of a declaration under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 4. The learned Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice regarding the sharp increase in Mr Atul Satija’s fourth-quarter salary. Citing a violation of section 13(1)(c), the AO proposed denying the exemption under section 11 and disallowing Rs 59511433/- under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The notice contrasted his salary of Rs 1437000/- per quarter for the first three quarters with Rs 44378000/- in the fourth quarter. 5. Responding to the show-cause notice, the assessee, relying on an email dated 30 March 2022, submitted that bonuses were paid to multiple employees in the ordinary course of business, based on their contributions and eligibility. The assessee denied that the remuneration was excessive, arguing that the AO had provided no evidence that it was unreasonable in relation to the services rendered. It opposed the proposed disallowance and cited judicial precedents in support. 6. After considering the assessee’s objections, the AO relied on the Chief Executive Officer’s substantial shareholding, the ₹ 30 lakh increase in fourth-quarter salary, and the bank statements furnished by the assessee. He concluded that the exemption under section 11, including accumulation under section 11(1)(a), was unavailable. Accordingly, the AO passed the assessment order dated 27 March 2024. 7. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the learned CIT(A), reiterating its submissions. On reviewing the explanation and supporting documents, the CIT(A) noted that remuneration had remained unchanged for the preceding five years. He assessed remuneration and the bonus in light of the recipient’s reputation, experience and contributions. Relying on the cited judicial precedents, he held that section 13(1)(c) did not apply and directed the AO to allow the claim under section 11(1)(a), thereby granting substantive relief. 8. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri V Venkatesh, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, challenged the appellate order, arguing that the fourth-quarter salary paid to a shareholder of the assessee company fell within section 13(1)(c) of the Act. He contended that the AO need not establish that remuneration paid to an interested person was excessive or unreasonable; the assessee bore the primary burden of proving compliance with the Act to claim relief under section 11(1)(a). He also challenged the CIT(A)’s deletion of the disallowance of accumulation. 9. The authorised representatives, Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, Advocate, and Shri K. Sheshadri, Chartered Accountant, filed a seven-page written submission and a 222-page paper book. The paper book contained the assessee’s registrations, approvals, incorporation documents, notes on charitable activities, audited financial statements, return of income, computation of income, correspondence with the lower authorities, the profile of Mr Atul Satija, the email dated 30 March 2022 concerning the bonus of ₹30,00,000 paid to him, and relevant bank statements. They also filed a compilation of 17 judicial decisions from coordinate benches, High Courts and the Supreme Court, together with CBDT Circular No. 387 dated 6 June 1984. 10. The substance of the written submissions is as follows: “The Respondent’s arguments on this issue are as follows. (a) Section 13(1)(c) could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The director’s rich work experience and contribution to the Respondent justify the remuneration. (c) Without prejudice, even if the invocation of section 13(1)(c) is upheld, exemption can be denied only to the extent that the remuneration to the director is considered unreasonable. (d) It has not been established that the director is a person covered by section 13(3). Each of these arguments is dealt with below in seriatim. 12. Section 13(1)(c) could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, the ld. AO did not invoke either sub-clause of section 13(1)(c). Sub-clause (i) deals with a case where any part of the income of the trust enures as laid down in the trust deed to the benefit of persons referred to in sub-section (3). This sub-clause does not apply and the AO does not say so. Sub-clause (ii) deals with a situation where any part of the income is used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of such persons. Section 13(2) deals with cases where the law deems that income has been used or applied for the benefit of such persons. Clause (c) in that sub-section reads: “if any amount is paid by way of salary, allowance, or otherwise, during the previous year to any person referred to in sub-section (3) out of the resources of the trust or institution for services rendered by that person to such trust or institution and the amount of paid is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services.”

Therefore, the test is whether the remuneration paid is reasonable. The finding of the ld. AO is only of an allegedly sudden and abrupt increase in the salary. This is sufficiently explained by the bonus. The ld. AO proceeded on the basis that the salary was “abnormal” (para 3.2 of the show cause notice at PB 142). However, neither was any finding reached on the point of abnormality, nor did the ld. AO follow any procedure whatsoever to determine what salary was “normal” and what constitutes an abnormal salary. In any event, the sole test is reasonableness and the reasonableness of the salary has not been questioned. In Dr. D. Y. Patil Pratisthan2 (para 37, CC 37-73), a co-ordinate bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal, rejecting the invocation of section 13(1)(c) in the context of remuneration, observed that the AO had not, in that case, brought on record how much should have been the reasonable remuneration and what amount was paid by similarly placed organisations. 14. Shri Satija’s remuneration pales in comparison with the scale at which activities were undertaken by the Respondent during the relevant previous year. This is demonstrated in the table below, where the column titled “%” shows the percentage of Shri Satija’s remuneration as against the other items listed in the table. Particulars Amount % (₹) Remuneration 87,48,000 N/A to Shri Satija Total donation 8,17,06,72,160 0.11% receipts Total project 7,66,53,13,950 0.11% implementation costs Total other costs 56,11,79,010 1.56%

By any stretch of the imagination, therefore, the remuneration is reasonable.

On this point, with respect to ground 4 of the present appeal, it is most humbly submits that the question of the payment of total remuneration of ₹87,48,000 is not disputed by either side. Therefore, whether the bonus is sufficiently evidenced is irrelevant. Once again, the test is only reasonableness. Without prejudice, particulars as to Shri Satija’s experience and his contributions to the Respondent were furnished before the ld. AO (PB 133, 135, 138, acknowledgement at PB 123-124). The ld. AO failed to rebut this. Further, internal email correspondence indicating board approval as well as dealing with bonus for the whole organisation is on the record (PB 153-154). The audited financial statements disclose the 2 Dr. D Y Patil Pratisthan vs. DCIT (2013) 39 Taxmann.com 138 (Pune – Trib) remuneration as related party transactions (PB 63) and the audit report in form 10B discloses this remuneration too (PB 117). Therefore, without prejudice, the bonus and the remuneration are also sufficiently evidenced. The ld. AO’s finding that it was not sufficiently evidenced is also attributable to a violation of the principles of natural justice as the show cause notice dated 13.03.2024 (Wednesday) was issued at 2237 hours and reply was sought by 1851 hours on 18.03.2024 (Monday) leaving only 3 effective days to file a reply. It is therefore also clear that the increase in the remuneration to Shri Satija was only on account of bonus which was paid to all employees of the Respondent. 17. In CMR Jnanadhara3 (para 5, CC 35-36), the Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court held that where on account of the services rendered by the trustees, there is substantial growth in the trust, payments made for such services could not be said to contravene section 13(1)(c). In Krupanidhi Education Trust4 (para 9, CC 24-32), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the Revenue cannot sit in judgement over the remuneration paid to the trustees of a charitable trust.

In Sarakki Educational Society5 (para 10.1 et. seq., CC 95-106), a co- ordinate Bengaluru Bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal held that the ld. AO ought to determine the fair market value of the services under consideration or identify a comparable uncontrolled price6 . Noting that section 13(2)(c) imposes the test of reasonableness, the Tribunal held (para 10.3) that “onus lies on the Revenue to bring on record cogent material /evidence to establish that the trust / charitable institution is hit by the provisions of section 13.” The co-ordinate bench also observed that there was a distinction between contractual compensation against services rendered and some benefit passed on which was not due or was unreasonable over and above what was reasonably due.

In Indian Rugby7 (para 7, CC 123-127), a co-ordinate bench of this Hon’ble Tribunal considered the qualifications, achievements and experience of the person to whom remuneration was paid to hold that the remuneration paid was reasonable under section 13(2)(c). Similar considerations prevailed in the undernoted cases8 . Reliance is also placed on the orders of co-ordinate benches 3 CIT v. CMR Janadhara Trust (2015) 55 taxmann.com 516 (Kar) 4 CIT(E) v. Krupanidhi Education Trust [2022] 441 ITR 154, 158-159 (Karn) 5 Sarakki Educational Society v. ITO(E) [2026] 182 taxmann.com 112 (Bang.-Trib.) 6 See also DCIT(E) v. Maharana Pratap Education Centre [2025] 181 taxmann.com 104 (Del.- Trib.) 7 ITO(E) v. Indian Rugby Footbal Union [2026] 183 taxmann.com 185 (Mum.-Trib.) 8 DDIT(E) v. Gideons International in India [2016] 65 taxmann.com 95 (Hyd-Trib.), DCIT(E) v. Pardada Pardadi Educational Society [2025] 174 taxmann.com 781 (Del.-Trib.) of this Hon’ble Tribunal in PNR Society9 (paras 12-13, CC 01-04), the judgement of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chirec Educational Society10 (para18, CC 05-23)

The director’s rich work experience and contribution to the Respondent justify the remuneration. In setting out the facts above, the director’s experience and contribution to the Respondent have already been dealt with and it has been shown how these factors contributed to the Respondent’s prosecution of its objects. From those facts, it is clear that the remuneration is justified and fully reasonable

Without prejudice, even if the invocation of section 13(1)(c) is upheld, exemption can be denied only to the extent that the remuneration to the director is considered unreasonable. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions11 (para, 11 CC 74) has held so in the context of section 13(1)(d). An SLP against this judgement was dismissed12. The same view was taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Working Women’s Forum13 (CC 81) against which to an SLP was dismissed14. Noting the judgement in Fr. Mullers (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in Audyogik Shikshan Mandal15 held (para 7, CC 86) that the legislature did not contemplate the denial of the benefit of section 11 in full as that would lead to grave injustice. It held that any minor mistake or misdemeanour would result in the denial of exemption in full which was not contemplated by the legislature. The same reasoning would apply to section 13(1)(c) too. In view of the aforesaid judgements, the amendment to sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) by Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2023 must be held to be clarificatory. In any case, even before Finance Act, 2022, the proviso to section 164(2) under which such sums would be taxed contemplated taxing either “the whole or any part of the relevant income” not exempt by virtue of clauses (c) or (d). This view is also supported by a Circular of the Board No. 387 dt. 06.07.198416 (paras 28.1 to 28.6, CC 136-138) which has been relied on by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation17 (CC 89).

In view of the aforesaid judgements, the ld. AO also erred in taxing the sum of ₹5,95,11,403 at the maximum marginal rate (MMR). Section 164(2) only contemplates the application of the MMR to so much of the income as is not exempt under section 11 or 12. 9 PNR Society for Relief and Rehabilitation of Disabled Trust v. DDIT(E) (2014) 52 Taxmann.com 362 (AhmedabadTrib) 10 Chirec Educational Society v. ADIT [2013] 354 ITR 605,619 (AP) 11 CIT v. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions (2014) 44 taxmann.com 275(Karnataka) 12 (2014) 51 taxmann.com 378 (CC 80) 13 CIT v. Working Women’s Forum [2014] 365 ITR 353 (Mad) 14 (2015) 63 taxmann.com 324 (SC) (CC 85) 15 CIT(E) v. Audyogik Shikshan Mandam (2019) 101 taxmann.com 247 (Bom) 16 [1984] 152 ITR (St.) 1, 19, 20 17 DIT(E) v. Sheth Mafatlal Gaglbhai Foundation Trust 249 ITR 533 (Bom)

In the absence of any finding on the part of the ld. AO as to the quantum of the remuneration considered unreasonable, no addition could have been made. The law does not contemplate that the MMR will apply to the whole of the accumulation not exceeding 15% contemplated by section 11(1)(a).

It has not been established that the director is a person covered by section 13(3). The only assertion of the ld. AO is that Shri Satija held almost 80% of the shares in the Respondent. The Respondent is a company licensed under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. Shareholders of such a company are not entitled to dividend, profits, bonus shares, etc. Holders of shares in a section 8 company are not beneficial owners thereof. There is no beneficial interest. Section 13(3)(e) read with explanation 3 to section 13 requires that the shares be held beneficially. This is not the case. The ld. AO has not reached a finding that Shri Satija is otherwise covered by section 13(3). 25. It is therefore most humbly prayed that the appeal of the Revenue be dismissed.

The learned authorised representative referred to the facts of the case and explained Mr Atul Satija’s role in generating donations for the assessee trust and the resulting increase in contributions. He submitted that bonuses were paid to several employees, not only to Mr Satija, and specifically referred to emails dated 22 March 2022 and 26 March 2021. He further stated that the ₹30,00,000 bonus paid to Mr Satija related to financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22 and was therefore attributable to two years. As the bonus was approved and paid during the relevant year, it was accounted for in that year, which explained the corresponding increase in Mr Satija’s fourth-quarter salary reported in Form No. 16. Relying on the coordinate bench’s decision in ITA No. 104, he argued that the burden was on the Assessing Officer to establish that the remuneration was excessive or unreasonable before invoking section 13(1)(c) of the Act. According to him, the AO failed to discharge that burden. He also relied on the detailed findings of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that, as the Departmental Representative had identified no infirmity in that order, it deserved to be upheld. 12. He further submitted that, even if section 13(1)(c) of the Act were violated, the entire accumulation claimed under section 11(1)(a), for which the statutory conditions had been met, could not be disallowed. At most, only the income or benefit connected with the violation could be taxed. He therefore contended that the Assessing Officer’s denial of the assessee’s exemption under section 11(1)(a) in respect of ₹5,94,00,000 was without merit. 13. In rebuttal, the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities, contending that the assessee had increased the interested person’s salary without justification. He therefore submitted that the learned Assessing Officer had rightly invoked section 13(1)(c) of the Act to deny the benefit under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and examined the orders of the lower authorities. The issue is whether the assessee’s payment of a ₹30,00,000 bonus to an interested person attracted section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, thereby justifying the Assessing Officer’s denial of the ₹5,94,00,000 benefit claimed under section 11(1)(a). Accordingly, the question before us is whether a violation of section 13(1)(c), if established, results in the complete or only the proportionate denial of the exemption under section 11(1)(a). 15. It is undisputed that the assessee is a charitable institution registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act and is ordinarily entitled to the benefits of sections 11 and 12. However, the Assessing Officer held that section 13 restricts those benefits where the conditions of section 13(1) are satisfied. In the present case, the issue is whether any income or property of the institution was used or applied, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of a person referred to in section 13(3). With effect from 1 April 2023, the amendment limits the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 to the income so applied. As the assessment year under appeal precedes that amendment, there was no express provision clarifying whether the denial should be confined to the quantified amount or extend to the entire income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer denied the exemption on the whole income. 16. The alleged violation concerns remuneration paid by the assessee, a section 8 company, to its director and Chief Executive Officer, Mr Atul Satija, who held 80% of its shares, signed its annual accounts, and was treated as a specified person under section 13(3) of the Act. Such payment would affect the assessee’s exemption only to the extent that it was excessive or unreasonable. Mr Satija’s regular salary was ₹14,37,000 per quarter; the dispute relates solely to the additional ₹30,00,000 paid in the final quarter as bonuses of ₹15,00,000 each for financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22. An email dated 22 March 2022 recorded that, owing to the institution’s exceptional COVID-response work and performance beyond expectations, the second-half bonus was doubled across the organisation and individual bonuses were fixed accordingly. The Board of Directors approved Mr Satija’s bonuses. Note 27 to the annual accounts records his remuneration at ₹57.48 lakh for the preceding year and ₹87.48 lakh for the relevant year. His profile at page 136 of the paper book states that, after he joined the assessee in 2017, gross donations rose from approximately ₹26.35 crore to about ₹800 crore in financial year 2021-22 and that he played a significant role in developing relationships with major donors and securing substantial grants. The issue, therefore, is whether the remuneration paid to Mr Satija was excessive or unreasonable. 17. We first consider the learned authorised representative’s contention that section 13(1)(c) of the Act could not be invoked unless the Assessing Officer established that the salary paid by the assessee to its trustee or director was excessive or unreasonable. He relied principally on the coordinate bench’s decision in Sarakki Educational Society v. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), 182 taxmann.com 112, dated 19 December 2025, which held that, where the Assessing Officer fails to establish that a payment was excessive, unreasonable, or conferred an undue benefit, the payment constitutes a valid application of income and exemption under section 11 cannot be denied by invoking section 13. In substance, he argued that the Assessing Officer bears the burden of determining whether the salary or other benefit was excessive or unreasonable. Paragraph 10.3 of that decision further states that the Revenue must place cogent material and evidence on record to establish that a trust or charitable institution is hit by section 13 and that the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that the remuneration was not lawfully due to the functionaries. We do not accept that the initial burden rests entirely on the Assessing Officer. A trust or institution filing its return in Form ITR-7 must disclose expenditure liable to disallowance and payments made to specified persons, compute its total income accordingly, and verify that the return is correct, complete, and compliant with the Income-tax Act, 1961. The initial burden therefore lies on the assessee to establish that payments to specified persons are neither excessive nor unreasonable and, where they are, to quantify the excess. Once the assessee discharges that burden, the Assessing Officer must produce material showing that the assessee’s statement is incorrect and identifying the extent to which the payment is excessive or unreasonable. 18. In the present case, the assessee declared in its return that no excessive payment had been made to the specified person, whereas the Assessing Officer regarded the remuneration as excessive and unreasonable. The assessee explained that Mr Atul Satija’s remuneration of ₹87,48,000 exceeded that of the preceding year by ₹30,00,000 because he received bonuses of ₹15,00,000 for each of the two financial years. It further pointed out that his remuneration represented only about 0.1% of the assessee’s total donation receipts of ₹817 crore, against project implementation costs of ₹766 crore. The assessee also relied on Mr Satija’s extensive professional experience with Flowserve Corporation, Infosys, Samsung, Adobe, Google and InMobi, his MBA from the Indian School of Business, and his service on advisory boards of reputed institutions. It stated that he had left a corporate position carrying annual remuneration of ₹3 crore and that, under his leadership, the trust received recognition from the Hon. Vice President of India and the Chief Ministers of Karnataka and Delhi for its work during the COVID-19 pandemic. He was also recognised among India CSR’s top ten impact leaders and served on the jury for the Forbes Social Impact Awards. According to the assessee, his contribution led to significant growth in the trust’s gross donations. The Board approved his remuneration and the two bonuses after evaluating his performance, while performance- based bonuses were also paid across the organisation. Having regard to his qualifications, experience, prior remuneration, contribution to the trust and the scale of its activities, we find no basis to hold that the remuneration of ₹87,48,000 paid for the year compared to Rs 57,48,000/- in the last year was excessive or unreasonable. Accordingly, section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act does not apply. 19. The learned CIT(A) held as follows: “7.3.5 Further, the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a company under section 25 of Companies Act, 1956 and no distribution to the shareholders of dividend, profit or bonus shares is permissible. Therefore, the shareholders do not enjoy benefits from owning the shares and the ownership of the shares is without any benefits and is purely legal ownership and not beneficial ownership. 7.4 The contention of the appellant and the assessment order are considered carefully and also considered the case laws on which tne appellant placed reliance. It is seen that the appellant paid extra amount of Rs 30 lakhs to Sri Atul Satija who is a CEO and Director of the appellant company, in the fourth quarter of the year apart from regular remuneration of Rs.14,37,000/-. The appellant has submitted before theAO that said excess amount was paid towards bonus for two financial years i.e 2020- 21 and 2021-22 for the contributions made during the covid pandemic. The appellant also submitted that bonus was paid to all eligible employees. On perusal of the bank statement of appellant, the AO noticed that two payments (Rs.23,610/- and Rs.1,17,562/-) were made to Atul and in narration of the transaction it is mentioned as bonus. In the absence of Atul bank statement, the AO presumed that this transaction pertains to him only. Since Shri Atul Satija is a CEO and holding 80% of shares in the company and the appellant has not provided justification for increase in salary for the fourth quarter, the AO held that the appellant violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with proviso to Section 13(3) of the Act and accordingly, denied the exemption claimed u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. 7.4.1 Now, the appellant has submitted that the amount was paid to two employees and narration was Atul Reportees followed by the names of the employees but the narration was cut out by the bank. Further, the appellant has submitted that remuneration was paid in same level from FY 2018-19 to FY 2020-21 and if the bonus was removed the amount is same in FY 2021-22 also. For the financial year 2022-23 also, the appellant paid approximately same amount. In support of its claim, the appellant has furnished audited financial statements. 7.4.2 On perusal of the financial statements, it is evident that the appellant is paying same level of remuneration from last five years. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the appellant is paying remuneration to Shri Atul Satija based on his qualification and past experience and the bonus was paid to him for contributions made by during covid pandemic. Therefore, respectfully following the judicial pronouncements on which the appellant has placed reliance, it is held that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable in case of the appellant. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow the deduction claimed u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act of Rs.5,95,11,403/- . Thus, the ground nos. 4, 5 and 7 are allowed. 20. We find no infirmity in the learned CIT(A)’s order holding that the assessee is entitled to the full deduction of ₹5,95,11,403 claimed under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer's grounds lack merit and are dismissed. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2026.