WORLDQUANT RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

PDF

ITA 3549/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3549/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 WorldQuant Research (India) Vs The Principal Commissioner Private Limited of Income Tax, Mumbai - 6 1102, 11th Floor Hiranandani Knowledge Park Technology Street Hiranandani Gardens Mumbai - 400076 [PAN: AAACW8197K] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Hardik Nirmal, Ms. Tejal Saraf, A/Rs Re4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) who assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The PCIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, mainly concerning CSR expenditure claimed as a donation under Section 80G.

Held

The Tribunal held that the issue is highly debatable and the view taken by the Assessing Officer (AO) was a plausible one. The PCIT's view was considered a change of opinion, which does not justify assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.

Key Issues

Whether the PCIT rightly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 for revising an assessment order concerning CSR expenditure claimed under Section 80G, when the issue is debatable and the AO's view was plausible.

Sections Cited

263, 37(1), 80G, 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

JMS Mining (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT
130 Taxmann.com 118 · 2021 · ITAT
93 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Hardik Nirmal &, Ms. Tejal Saraf, A/Rs

Hearing: 24/07/2025Pronounced: 31/07/2025

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax , Mumbai - 6 [hereinafter ‘the ld. PCIT)’] dated 10/03/2025 pertaining to AY 2020-21. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. PCIT erred in assuming juri iction conferred upon him by the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and further erred in holding that the assessment order dated 06/09/2022 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2

The sole reason for assuming juri iction u/s 263 of the Act is the audit objection by the revenue and audit party in relation to the CSR expenditure disallowed u/s 37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 29,95,468/- claimed as donation u/s 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 14,97,734/-.

The ld. PCIT was of the firm belief that allowing the CSR expenditure to be deduction u/s 80G of the Act would create a significant loophole enabling corporations to shift their statutory obligations onto the public exchequer. The ld. PCIT was of the firm belief that the decision of the AO is erroneous on merits as well as the fact that he has not conducted further enquiries. Drawing support from the Finance Bill, 2014, the ld. PCIT, adjudicated by holding that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Having heard the rival submissions, we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below.