BRUKER INDIA SCIENTIFIC PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH
MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&

SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Bruker India Scientific
Private Limited
609, B Wing
Satellite
Gazebo
Andheri,
Ghatkopar
Road, Chakala
Chakala, MIDC
S.O. Mumbai- 400 093

Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT,
Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai
PAN/GIR No.AAACB2346K
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Bhavin Shah
Revenue by Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh,
CIT DR
Date of Hearing
05/08/2025
Date of Pronouncement
28/08/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the revisionary order dated 20/03/2025 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the assessment year 2020-21. By the impugned order, the learned PCIT has set aside the assessment order dated
16/09/2022, on the ground that the Assessing Officer had Bruker India Scientific Pvt. Ltd.,

2
wrongly allowed deduction under section 80G in respect of sums forming part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure.
2. The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture, distribution, sales, and services of scientific equipment, had filed its return of income on 12/02/2021, declaring a total income of ₹33,85,96,450/-. In its computation of income, it had suomoto disallowed an amount of ₹32,31,825/- towards
CSR expenditure. Out of this, a sum of ₹28,02,082/- representing contribution to the Prime Minister’s National
Relief Fund was claimed as deduction under section 80G. The Assessing
Officer, after considering the details and explanations placed on record, admitted the claim and allowed the deduction.
3. The learned PCIT, however, observed that the assessment order did not contain any specific discussion or enquiry on this issue. He took the view that CSR expenditure lacks the element of voluntariness, being a statutory mandate under section 135 of the Companies Act, and therefore the assessee cannot simultaneously avail the benefit of deduction under section 80G. After deliberating upon the legal position, he concluded as under:
“8.9 The above provisions mandates that for the amount spent over and above CSR expenses made under Swachh Bharat
Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund, the assessee can claim deduction under Section 80G(2)(iihk) & (iiihl) Thus, eventhough assessee has incurred CSR expenses under these two funds, the amount over and above the amount claimed under CSR will be eligible for deduction u/s. 8G of the Act. This is an enabling provisions to allow more funds flow in Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund and this provision cannot be Bruker India Scientific Pvt. Ltd.,

3
interpreted to mean that all other heads of deductions u/s. 80G can be claimed even though they are spent under CSR liability.
Raju Raja of Vizianagaram (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for any payment to constitute as donation, it must satisfy the test of voluntariness. The assessee in the current case incurred expenses under CSR head as part of mandatory compliance of the provisions of Companies Act and this certainly lacked voluntariness character. Thus, it is apparent that the A.O had no occasion to examine the issue of CSR expenses vis-a-vis section 80G donations and to this extent it can be held that the assessment order suffers from infirmity being erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue for allowing ineligible claim of deduction of Rs.28,02,082/- u/s.
80G of the Act. Hence, the assessment order dated 16.09.2022
is hereby partly set aside to the file of the AO to enquire the claim of Section 80G deduction out of CSR expenses and modify the assessment order as per findings in this order.

4
contended that allowing deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure would amount to nullifying the legislative intent behind Explanation 2 to section 37(1).
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee had disallowed the entire
CSR expenditure while computing its business income. The deduction under section 80G was claimed only in respect of the contribution to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, which enjoys specific recognition under section 80G(2)(ia) of the Act.
7. The controversy as to whether CSR expenditure, once disallowed under section 37, can still qualify for deduction under section 80G, has now been settled through a catena of decisions of this Tribunal. In particular, the ruling in Blue
Dart Express Limited (ITA No. 1101/Mum/2024) has dealt with this issue in extenso, wherein it was held:

“9. We have heard both the parties and also perused the relevant material referred to before us. First of all from the perusal of the re-assessment order which is the subject matter of revision u/s.263 by the ld. PCIT, we find that this was one of the ground for reopening and ld. AO has raised specific query as noted above on exactly same issue. The assessee has given its detailed reply and after examining those replies, the ld. AO has allowed the deduction u/s.80G holding that assessee has already disallowed CSR expenses u/s.37(1), and there is no bar for claiming deduction u/s.80G unless the same is not in accordance with the provision of the Section 80G and there is no issue of mutual exclusiveness of the claim found in this regard. Ld. PCIT has not brought on record any law or judicial precedence that such an observation and finding of the ld. AO is incorrect in law. Once the ld. AO has taken a possible
Bruker India Scientific Pvt. Ltd.,

5
view and there is no contrary law, then to take a different view in a revisionary juri iction u/s.263, cannot be held that the order of the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. There is no case of invoking Explanation 2 to Section 263 which ld. PCIT has done, because ld. AO has made his enquiry and verification on the same issue. Ld. PCIT cannot cancel the assessment order to re-examine the same issue without finding any defect in such order that how the claim made u/s.80G is unsustainable in law.

6
vis-à-vis CSR can be restricted to contributions made to these
Funds mentioned in Section 800(2)(a)(iiihk) and (iiihl) only. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not claimed any deduction against the aforesaid clauses of 80G (2)(a) of the Act and as such entire donation claimed by the assessee is allowable u/s 80G. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs ("MCA") has issued "FAQs" through General circular no. 01/2016 dated
January 12, 2016 (FAQ No. 6) and has clarified on the issue as follows:
"Question No. 6: What tax benefits can be availed under CSR?

Answer: No specific tax exemptions have been extended to CSR expenditure per se. The Finance Act, 2014 also clarifies that expenditure on CSR does not form part of business expenditure. While no specific tax exemptions have been extended to expenditure incurred on CSR, spending on several activities like Prime Minister's Relief Fund, scientific research, rural development projects, skill development projects, agriculture extension projects etc, which fund place in Schedule
VII, already enjoys exemptions under different sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961."
11. This clarification being issued by the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs, Government of India clarifies that donation covered under CSR Expenses which not are eligible for the deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but are allowed under different sections. Ergo, there is nothing that if any expenditure is disallowable u/s 37 the same cannot be allowed under other provisions of Act, if the conditions of allowability are satisfied. Thus, allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80G by the ld. AO cannot be held to be unsustainable in law or amounts to erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus order of the Ld. PCIT is reversed on this point.

7
notified fund, and there is no allegation that the claim falls under the exceptions carved out by clauses (iihk) or (iiihl) of section 80G(2)(a).
9. We also note the decision of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Sikka
Ports and Terminals Ltd. [(2025) 173 taxmann.com 366], where the entire spectrum of arguments on voluntariness, statutory mandate, and legislative intent were examined. The Tribunal lucidly explained that although CSR spending is obligatory in quantum, the choice of recipient remains discretionary with the assessee. Consequently, contributions made to approved institutions under section 80G retain their eligibility, subject of course to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein.
The relevant observations merit reproduction:

 The assessee during the year disallowed a sum of Rs.33.85 crores under section 37 towards the CSR Spend in compliance with section 135 of the Companies Act.
Since the institutions to which the said amounts are given are registered under section BOG, the assessee claimed
50 per cent ie. Rs.16.93 crores of the same as deduction.
The argument of the revenue is that the payment are made to comply with the mandate under the Companies
Act, and therefore it cannot be treated as donations which are "voluntary" payments. The further argument of the revenue is that when the statute has denied the direct claim of the CSR spend under section 37, the assessee claiming the deduction indirectly under section 80G is against the intention of the legislature and cannot be allowed. The assessee's contention is that there is no restriction under section 80G to the effect that the contribution should be voluntary and that the CSR spend is an application of income which is eligible for deduction from the gross total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 80G.
Bruker India Scientific Pvt. Ltd.,

8
 The word "donation" has not been defined under the Act.
However the Supreme Court in the context of Expenditure
Tax Act in the case of Commissioner of Expenditure Tax v.
PVG. Raju(1975) 101 ITR 465 (SC) has described the meaning of the word "donation"
 Therefore to examine if CSR spending of the assessee would be a donation it is essential to examine whether the donations given by the assessee to Rellance
Foundation and Shyam Kothari Foundation without any material return and without any consideration and whether it was a grant for quid pro quo. It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee has made contributions to these institutions with an Intention get something in return. The only contention of the revenue is that the contributions are made as part of a mandate and not voluntary. However, the Supreme Court in the above case has laid down the basic principle that a payment made without any material return and without any consideration and not for quid pro quo is a donation.
Therefore, the payment made whether voluntarily or as part of a mandate does not negate the intention of the contribution made.
 Now coming to the intention of legislature while amending the provisions of section 37 whereby the CSR spend are not allowed to be claimed as a deduction under the said section. Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 brought in the amendment to section 37 by inserting Explanation 2 to the said section with effect from 1-4-2015.  The "Explanatory Notes to the provisions of Finance (No.2)
Act, 2014" issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its Circular No.01/2015 dated 21-1-2015 explaining the aforesaid amendment, clarifies that 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 and that 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. However, it is pertinent to note that though, the expenditure Incurred towards CSRs is not an expenditure incurred for the purpose of business, if the spend is of the nature described in sections 30 college or other institution to be used for scientific research etc., which are approved
Bruker India Scientific Pvt. Ltd.,

9
under section 35 n For example if the contribution is made to a scientific research association, or to a university or to s part of CSR spending then deduction can be allowed subject to the fulfilment of conditions prescribed under section 35. This explanatory note though self- contradictory Le, denying deduction under section 31 but allowing the assessee to claim deduction under sections
30 to 36, also makes it clear that there is no bar regarding the admissibility of CSR expenditure under any other provision of the Act, except under section 37(1). In other words, the intention of the legislature is not to restrict the right of the assessee to claim deduction towards the CSR spend if the payment is otherwise allowable under a specific provision of the Act. Further wherever the intention is to restrict the claim of deduction under any other provisions of the Act the same is explicitly provided for to that effect by the legislature. This view is supported by the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill 2015 which brought in the specific restriction for claiming deduction under section 80G towards the CSR spend towards donation to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean BOG is against the intention of the legislature which restricts the same to be claimed as a deduction under Ganga Fund. Therefore, the contention that the CSR spend being claimed as a deduction under section section 37 cannot be appreciated.
 The next issue is whether the impugned payments are otherwise eligible for deduction under section 80G It has already been established that the payments made by the assessee are donations and therefore if the other conditions for the deduction under section 80G are fulfilled then there should not be any restriction for the assessee to claim the deduction. Before holding so the contention of the revenue that the payments made towards CSR spend are monitored and controlled by the assessee and are not voluntary is addressed section 135
of Companies Act 2013, there are many prescribed modes and activities under Schedule VII In this regard it is relevant to note that though there is a statutory obligation of CSR expenditure under CSR expenditure, (the list is not exhaustive but ofither section 135 of the Companies Act nor Schedule VII to the Companies Act nor the CSR Rules, mandates donations to the institutes/funds prescribed
Bruker India Scientific Pvt. Ltd.,

10
under section 80G. Therefore, there is merit in the submission of the assessee that though the quantum of CSR spend is mandatory there is no mandate on how amount is to be spent or to whom the contribution is to be made. Accordingly the act of the assessee to choose to Reliance Foundation and Shyam Kothari Foundation which are eligible to accept donations under section 80G is voluntary and is not mandated by section 135 of the Companies Act 2013. Further from the perusal of CSR
Rules as applicable in assessee's case, it is noticed that the monitoring of the CSR spend is to ensure that the same is as per the CSR policy of the company and it does not provide for monitoring the utilization of the funds by the third party donees. In any case the donations made for a specific cause does not result in denial of deduction which is otherwise allowable as per the provisions of section 80G.
 One more point that needs to be considered while deciding the deduction under section 80G for CSR spend is that the restriction on the allowability of the said spend as provided in Explanation 2 to section 37 is for computing the business income under the provision of section 28-44DB whereas the deduction fer section 80G is claimed under Chapter VIA ie. after computing the Gross
Total Income. The provisions of section 80G does not impose any condition that the contribution should be voluntary and provefore when the CSR spend is evaluated independently under the provisions of the Act, it is viewed that there is no restriction for the assessee to claim deduction under section 80G provided the CSR spend meets the conditions specified therein. In other words, the provisions of section 37 is computation provision whereas section 80G is a beneficial provision which allows deduction towards payments made by the assessee for charitable purposes and therefore these two sections are independent of each other. For example, when a company which is not required to comply with the provisions of section 135 of the Companies Act 2013
makes a donation or a company makes donations in excess of 2 per cent even then the payment may get disallowed under section 37 but in that case the revenue would not impose any restriction to evaluate the payment for claiming deduction under section 80G. If the same
Bruker India Scientific Pvt. Ltd.,

11
analogy is applied to the CSR spend it is viewed that the assessee should be able to claim deduction under section 80G if the other conditions are fulfilled. Denying the claim for the reason that there is a specific mention under section 37 for disallowance and that the payments are made in compliance with section 135 of the Companies
Act is not legally tenable unless there is an explicit provision for e.g. contributions towards "Swacha Bharat
Kosh" and "Clean Ganga Fund.
 In view these discussions and considering the judicial precedence in this regard, it is viewed that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the deduction under section 80G to the assessee towards donations made to Reliance Foundation and Shyam Kothari Foundation. Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
10. In light of the above authoritative pronouncements, it becomes abundantly clear that the view taken by the Assessing Officer in allowing the deduction under section 80G was a plausible and legally sustainable view. It cannot, therefore, be characterised as an order “erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” within the meaning of section 263. The learned PCIT, in our considered view, transgressed the permissible limits of his revisionary juri iction in directing a re-examination of the issue without demonstrating that the assessment order suffered from any legal infirmity.
11. Accordingly, following the coordinate bench decisions and guided by the principle that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has adopted one, the Commissioner cannot substitute his judgment merely because he holds a different opinion, we set aside the impugned revisionary order.
Bruker India Scientific Pvt. Ltd.,

Order pronounced on 28th August, 2025. (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 28/08/2025
KARUNA, sr.ps
Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,

(Asstt.