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

PDF · subscribers
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

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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 jurisdiction 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

3.

The sole reason for assuming jurisdiction 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/-.

4.

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.

5.

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

6.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the order of the ld. PCIT. We are of the considered view that the issue raised by the ld. PCIT is a highly debatable issue as the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal have taken a consistent view that CSR expenditure can be claimed as expenditure u/s 80G of the Act in the cases of Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. (ITA No. 1795/Mum/2023, order dated 18.08.2023), Allegis Services India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1693/Bang/2019), JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. [130 taxmann.com 118 (Kolkata Trib.)] and Elan Pharma (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No. 2419/Mum/2025. I.T.A. No. 3549/Mum/2025 3

7.

As the issue is highly debatable, any view taken by the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings has to be considered as a plausible view and the view taken by the ld. PCIT, howsoever plausible, is nothing but a change of opinion for which jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be assumed. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we set aside the order of the ld. PCIT and restore that of the AO dated 06/09/2022. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 31st July, 2025 at Mumbai. (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 31/07/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

1.

""थ" / The Respondent 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 3. आयकर आयु" अपील

4.

( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 5. गाड" फाई/ Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →