JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against revision order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. PCIT’), whereby the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2020-21 was held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The groun under: Ground No.1: Validit 1. The learned PCIT law, by passing the dated 17.03.2025, w disallowance of do amounting to Rs.12, application of mind a 2. The learned PC deduction under se appellant, including specifically raised proceedings and wa the assessment. 3. On the facts and PCIT erred on facts section 263 of the A satisfying the twin being: (a) erroneous; and consequently, th be quashed. 4. The learned PCIT aside the assessme the Act, without app a. It was not a case the course of assess b. The view taken Donation Deduction c. Revisionary proce basis of 'change of op 5. The learned PCI assessment order, w merits, thereby, not order was erroneous

Jeevand
ITA nds raised by the assessee are ty of Order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act erred in facts and circumstances of the c revision order u/s 263 of the Income Tax whereby the assessment order dated 09.0
onation claimed u/s 80G of the Incom
,49,000/-) which was passed u/s 143(3
and proper inquiries.
CIT failed to appreciate that the issue ection 80G in respect of donations ma g those forming part of CSR obliga by the Assessing Officer during a as duly responded to and examined befor d circumstances of the case and in law t and in law in exercising revisionary pow
Acton various issues in the impugned ord juri ictional conditions of the assess
; and (b) prejudicial to the interests of th he impugned order is illegal, bad in law a T erred in facts and in law by enhanci ent order by exercising powers undersec reciating that:
e of lack of enquiry as the assessing off ment proceedings has duly verified the sa by the assessing officer in respect o was, in any case, a plausible view; and eedings could not be initiated on a me opinion'.
IT erred in facts and in law by setting without even recording any prima facie f demonstrating how and why the final a s and prejudicial to the interests of the Re deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
2
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
e reproduced as t, 1961
case and in x Act, 1961
09.2022 (on me Tax Act
3) after due e regarding ade by the ation, was assessment re finalizing the learned wers under der, without ment order he Revenue and liable to ing/ setting ction 263 of fficer during ame; of the 80G rely on the g aside the findings on assessment evenue.

Jeevand
ITA erred in facts by holding that the assess d prejudicial to the interests of reven eed with the view taken by the Assess ing how the order violated Explanation 2
rrect disallowance of donation claimed u it s forms part of CSR Expenditure
IT erred in facts and in law by disal
49,000/- under section 80G of the IT Act.
d circumstances of the case and in law t owing the deduction of donation paid and e provisions of section 80G of Income sed on assumptions and surmises.
IT grossly erred in disallowing the de nder section 80G of the IT Act of Rs.1
g the fact that donation paid is eligible fo provisions of section 80G of the IT Act hich are duly registered u/s 12A of the I ned PCIT also erred in law by disregard s claimed u/s 80G of the Act pertained under section 80G of the Act.
failed to appreciate the fact that your Ap d the CSR expenses u/s 37(1) of the ness income and claimed deduction of Rs.
which falls under Chapter VIA wherein erred in holding that deduction under sec nations made in fulfillment of CSR obliga
Companies Act, 2013, thereby ignori wherein such deduction has been upheld, t. Ltd. (ITA No. 490/Mum/2021) ndia Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1693/Bang/2019) ervices Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2355/Bang/201
obal Services Pvt. Ltd. (160 taxmann.com deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
3
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
sment order nue" merely sing Officer,
2 to Section u/s 80G of llowing the the learned d claimed in tax Act of eduction of 12,49,000/- or deduction t and were Income Tax ing the fact d to eligible ppellant has e Act while
. 12,49,000
there is no ction 80G is ations under ing various inter alia:
19)
599

CIT erred in holding that the nature o o disqualifies the assessee from claiming despite absence of any express bar in th e two exclusions under Section 80G(2)(a d circumstances of the case and in law t y claiming that Circular issued by Centr g on taxpayer.
prays that the disallowance made in the d bad in law and facts and hence the facts of the case are that duri company was engaged in th g and reproduction of record urn of income for the year unde ring total income at Rs.17,07,84
income filed by the assessee w ory notices under the Income-ta issued and complied with. The a leted wherein the returned ed. Subsequently, in view of an al audit wing, the Ld. PCIT calle n, he was of the opinion that as far as prejudicial to the interest spect to the claim of deduction te social responsibility (CSR) e
00/-. The learned PCIT, invokin
Act, which deems an order as e deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
4
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
of the CSR g deduction he statutory a)(iiihk) and the learned ral Board of e impugned same may ing the relevant he business of ed media. The er consideration
4,200/-.
was selected for ax Act, 1961 (in assessment was income of the n audit objection ed for the record ssessment order of the Revenue, u/s 80G of the expenses to the ng Explanation 2
erroneous where there is a lack of en cause notice under se
2.3 In response, the had indeed examined section 80G and had the judicial precede certain decisions of the learned PCIT was He was of the view obligation under sect element of voluntarin donation eligible for support of this view judgment of the H
Expenditure Tax v.
1017], wherein it was as donations. The Ld issued by the Minis clarifies that CSR e exemption under the decision of the Tribu contrary he relied on in the case of Agilen
(2024) 160 taxmann
Jeevand
ITA nquiry or inadequate enquiry, ection 263 of the Act.
e assessee submitted that the A d the allowability of the CSR exp d allowed the same after due c ents relied upon by the asse the Income-tax Appellate Trib s not persuaded by the explana w that CSR expenditure, bei tion 135 of the Companies Act, ness, which is a sine qua non for deduction under section 80G w, the learned PCIT placed r
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Co
P.V.G. Raju of Vizianagaram s held that only voluntary contr d. PCIT also referred to the Circu try of Corporate Affairs on 12
expenditure does not enjoy a e Act. The learned PCIT also di unal relied upon by the asses the decision of the Delhi Bench nt Technologies (International) (
.com 238 (Delhi-Trib.). The Ld.
deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
5
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
issued a show
Assessing Officer penditure under consideration of essee, including bunal. However, ation furnished.
ing a statutory
2013, lacks the r qualifying as a G of the Act. In reliance on the ommissioner of [(1967) 1 SCR ributions qualify ular No. 1/2016
.01.2016 which any specific tax istinguished the see and on the h of the Tribunal
(P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
PCIT also drew attention to the spe respect of contributi
‘Swachh Bharat Kos conclusion that CSR provision. Accordingl erroneous insofar a observing as under:
6.5 The deci erroneous on further enqu mandated f submissions
Finance Bill,
Responsibility that the Corp social services
"Under have n
1000 c any fin their
Respon expend of the taxable applica for the income compu cannot income share by com thresho would expens
6.6 Further, t statutory zzz
Jeevand
ITA ecific exclusions contained in ons to certain CSR-related fun h’ and the ‘Clean Ganga Fund
R expenses are not deductible ly, the ld. PCIT, held the asses as prejudicial to the interest ision of the Assessing Officer in the i merits as well as the fact that he has uiries, when facts on record. per se further inquiry or investigation.
Fur of the assessee are not acceptable i
2014 vide which the concept of Co y was introduced. The intent of the legisla orates share the burden of the Governme s, the extract of which is reproduced here r the Companies Act, 2013 certain com net worth of Rs.500 crore or more, or t crore or more, or a net profit of Rs.5 crore nancial year) are required to spend certai profit on activities relating to Co nsibility (CSR). Under the existing provis diture incurred wholly and exclusively fo business is only allowed as a deduction e business income.
CSR expenditu ation of income, is not incurred wholly a purposes of carrying on business. As th e is not allowed as deduction for th ting taxable income of a company, amoun t be allowed as deduction for computi e of the company. Moreover, the objectiv burden of the Government in providing mpanies having net worth/turnover/p old. If such expenses are allowed as tax result in subsidizing of around one ses by the Government by way of tax exp the Companies Act, 2013 mandates CSR obligation, not as a voluntary donation. T deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
6
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
section 80G in nds such as the d’, to bolster his under the said ssment order as of the revenue instant case is s not conducted justified and rthermore, the in view of the orporate Social ature itself was ent in providing e under; mpanies (which turnover of Rs.
or more during in percentage of rporate
Social sions of the Act or the purposes n for computing ure, being an and exclusively he application of he purposes of nt spent on CSR ng the taxable ve of CSR is to social services profit above a deduction, this e-third of such enditure".
R spending as a Therefore:


CSR ex with st

Allowin would deduct

Claim expens wastag expend agains

The In already reinfor under In view of t assessment o
144B of the prejudicial to assessment o issue of claim expense amo an enquiry in opportunity of 3. Before us, the L the Paper Book comp page No. 51 of the P
Officer had raised a of CSR expenditure u by the Assessing Offi
1. आयकर अͬधǓनयम
Ǔनàनͧलͨखत खाते या दèतावेज या
1. The follow sought under Jeevand
ITA xpenses are not made out of free will bu tatutory provisions.
ng deductions under Section 80G for lead to double benefits-once by allo tion and again by fulfilling a statutory obl of deduction by the assessee with r ses and allowance of such expenditure ge of entire effort of the legislature diture as appropriation of profit after st the spirit of law and the intention of the ncome Tax Act, through Explanation 2 to y disallows CSR expenses from bus rcing the position that they do not qualify other provisions.
the above, I am of the considered op order passed by the Assessing Officer u
Act dated 09.09.2022, is erroneous in o the interest of the revenue. Accordi order passed by the Assessing Officer is s m of deduction under section 80G of t unting to Rs. 12,49,000/-. The AO is di n this matter and re-assess the income f being heard to the assessee.”
Ld. counsel for the assessee pla prising pages 1 to 82 drawing o
Paper Book. He submitted tha specific query in respect of cla u/s 80G of the Act. The releva cer is reproduced as under:
“अनुलÊनक ANNEXURE
आयकर अͬधǓनयम, 1961 कȧ धारा 142 (1)
Ǔनàनͧलͨखत खाते या दèतावेज या जानकारȣ मांगी गई है
ing accounts or documents or informatio section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 196
deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
7
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
ut in compliance
CSR expenses owing it as a ligation.
regard to CSR will result into to treat CSR tax. It will be e legislature.
o Section 37(1), siness income, y for deductions pinion that the u/s.143(3) r.w.s so far as it is ingly, the said set-aside on the the Act of CSR irected to make after giving an aced reliance on our attention to at the Assessing aim of deduction ant query raised
के तहत
जानकारȣ मांगी गई है:
on is/are 61:

The assesse
28/07/2022. wishes to sub made dated
29/07/2022:
1. The asses has made a charitable ins

Name of Institution
Bhagwan Mahavir Pa
Kendra
Shri K.V.O Utkarsh Pr
Kutch Yuvak Sangh
Konkan education soc
ST. Thomas Church
Daar-ul-rehmat Trust
ST. MICHAEL charitab
SHETH DHANJI DEVS
KELAVANI FUND
Karnataka Holy cross
Shri K.V.O. Seva Sam
Shri Bhojay Sarvoday
Srimad Rajchandra A Satsang Sadhna Kend
SWAMI VIVEKANAND
Laxmiben Lalji Furia C
Total Donation
Qualifying Amount
Deductible amount un
Jeevand
ITA ee is in receipt of notice u/s 142(1
In response to the said notice, the a bmit the following, in addition to the sub 05/01/2022, 17/03/2022, 21/07/20
ssee company, for the year under consi a total donation of Rs.24,98,000/- to stitutions as mentioned below;
PAN
Am
Rs.) shu Raksha
AAAJB0003
1,0
ratishtan
AAOTS5780M
2,0
AAATK0253F
1,2
ciety
AAATK3407H
51,
AABTS9310C
30,
AAATD0376Q
6,0
ble trust
AAKTS7117G
15,
SHI KVO
AAATS1495D
100
s sisters
AAATK1214E
16, maj
AAATS0288A
55, ya Trust
AABTS8782J
1,0
dhyatmik dra
AABTS2637Q
5,0
D SHIKSHAN
AAAAS1296H
10,
Charitable
AAATL0063C
2,0
24,
24, nder section 80 G @ 50%
12, deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
9
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
1) dated assessee missions
022 and ideration various mount (in )
0,000
0,000
5,000
000
000
00
000
0,000
000
000
0,000
0,000
00,000
0,000
98,000
98,000
49,000

Donation rec institutions a highlighting p already subm proceedings.
Contemporan also gets co activities and CSR expendi same was d section 37{1) head Income f
While comput the year unde the IT Act is institutions/fu
1961. During donations (as registered un hence all the were duly
Rs.12,49,000
For the sake attention to expenditure under;
Prior to 2013
of the volunta group like pu found to be h and were inc the business, a few other i activities wer for deduction conditions the However, hav philanthropic expense, the not be eligible this purpose, the Finance (N
Jeevand
ITA ceipts issued by all the above ch along with 80G certificate and bank s payments made by the assessee com mitted during the ongoing course of ass eously, the above donations of Rs.24,9
overed as a contribution made towar d hence such expenditure was also classif ture in the financial statements and h isallowed in accordance with the prov of the IT Act while computing income u from Business.
ting the total income of the assessee com er consideration, deduction under section available for donations made by an ass funds/trusts registered under the Income g the year, the assessee company had m s stated above) and ail the entities w nder the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1
conditions laid down in section 80G of th satisfied and accordingly deduc
0/- was claimed in the return of income.
of easy reference, we wish to draw y the history behind the allowability and amendment thereon for disallowa either by the company or group compani ary CSR activities undertaken by the com ublic welfare scheme etc such activitie having nexus with the business of the a curred wholly and exclusively for the pu were eligible as a tax-deductible expend instances, the expenditure incurred on re not allowed as a deduction, but were n under section 80G, subject to mee erein.
ving regard to the fact that CSR expense nature and were not necessarily a b
Parliament legislated that CSR expense e for deduction under section 37 of the IT Explanation 2 to section 37(1) was inser
(No 2) Act, 2014 (applicable from the ass deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
10
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
haritable tatement mpany is sessment
98,000/- rds CSR fied as a ence the isions of under the mpany for n 80G of sessee to Tax Act, made 14
ere duly
961 and he IT Act ction of our kind of CSR ance, as ies, some mpany /
es, when assessee urpose of diture. In the CSR e eligible eting the s have a business es would
T Act. For rted vide sessment year 2015-16
by an assess section 135 of an expenditu business or p under section bringing the Memorandum
01/2015, Da under:
"CSR expend incurred whol business. As deduction for company, am deduction for Moreover, the Government i net worth/tur are allowed a of around on way of tax ex
The existing p deduction fo specifically in allowed if the purposes of c expenditure (b the purposes cannot be allo of the Income on this issue, section 37(1) activities rela in section 135
to have been shall not be a the CSR exp section 30 to deduction un conditions, if Jeevand
ITA

6), which provided that any expenditure see on the activities relating to CSR refer f Companies Act 2013, shall not be deem ure incurred by the assessee for the pu profession and shall not be allowed as d n 37(1) of the IT Act. The intent of Parlia said provision is given in the Exp m to the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 [Circu ated 21st January, 2015] and is reprod diture, being an application of income lly and exclusively for the purposes of car s the application of income is not allo r the purposes of computing taxable inco mount spent on CSR cannot be allo r computing the taxable income of the c e objective of CSR is to share burden in providing social services by companie rnover/profit above a threshold. If such e as tax deduction, this would result in sub ne-third of such expenses by the Govern xpenditure.
provisions of section 37(1) of the Act prov or any expenditure, which is not m n section 30 to section 36 of the Act, e same is incurred wholly and exclusivel carrying on business or profession. As being an application of income) is not inc s of carrying on business, such expe owed under the existing provisions of se e-tax Act. Therefore, in order to provide
, it is proposed to clarify that for the pur any expenditure incurred by an assesse ating to corporate social responsibility ref
5 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be incurred for the purpose of business an allowed as deduction under section 37. H penditure which is of the nature desc o section 36 of the Act shall be allo nder those sections subject to fulfill any, specified therein."
deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
11
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
incurred rred to in med to be urpose of deduction ament in planatory ular No. - duced as e, is not rrying on owed as ome of a owed as company.
n of the s having expenses bsidizing nment by vide that mentioned shall be ly for the the CSR urred for enditures ection 37
certainty rposes of ee on the ferred to e deemed nd hence
However, cribed in owed as lment of Thus, it is a section 135 ca under section which is of th
IT, was allow out or expend is allowable u
Expenditure o expenditure o as setting up etc. Such exp falling for con the other h participating d to institutions
While expend would undoub help to meet under section conditions laid
After the ame deduction und for CSR un authorities co never to allow result in subs
Furthermore, expenditure is In this regard

In the clarifie expend referen deduct pursua the M expens to 36
emerge blankly

Jeevand
ITA a clear that the CSR expenditure referr annot be claimed as a tax deductible exp n 37(1) of the IT Act. However, CSR expe he nature described under sections 30 to 3
wable as a deduction, say CSR expendi ded on Scientific Research related to the b under section 35(1)(i) and 35(1)(iv) etc.
on CSR could take many forms. There on projects directly undertaken by compa p and running schools, social business penditure would include expenditure o nsideration under section 37(1) of the IT hand, companies, instead of underta directly in a project, may choose to give d s that are engaged in undertaking such pr diture falling within the ambit of secti btedly not qualify, the donations, which i the CSR obligation, would qualify for d n 80G, if the donation otherwise satis d down in that section.
endment, the revenue have objected to the der section 80G for eligible donations, q der the Companies Act 2013. The ontend that the intention of the legislat w deduction for CSR expenditure, else sidizing the CSR expenditure by one-third it is the contention of the revenue th s not 'voluntary', but 'mandatory' in natur d, assessee company submits as under;-
Memorandum to the Finance Bill, it h ed that no deduction will be allowed diture as a business expenditure, but the nce to ineligibility or restriction in tion under section 80G for donation ant to Companies Act 2013 obligations.
Memorandum, it has been clarified th ses which fall for consideration under sec of the IT Act are allowable. Thus, a es that the intent of the Legislature wa y disallow every CSR expenditure.
deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
12
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
red to in penditure enditure,
36 of the iture laid business could be any, such projects, otherwise
T Act. On aking or donations rojects.
ion 37(1) indirectly deduction sfies the e claim of ualifying revenue ture was it would amount.
hat CSR re.
has been for CSR ere is no claiming ns made
Also, in hat CSR ctions 30
position as not to 
Section income accord sum p donatio which Section only af applyin heads
37(1).
Thus, t section under itself ( which and als

Section section toward where under 
Section by the Thus, donatio and Cl
80G(2)
Bharat include
The dis
à-vis C these F interpr stated law. Yo
Karnat
483-HC be paid
In view contrib qualify as ther
Jeevand
ITA n 80G(1) provides that in computing t e of the assessee, there shall be dedu dance with the provisions of this sectio aid by the assessee in the previous ye on. Further, section 80G(2) list down the deduction shall be allowed to the a n 80G falls in Chapter VIA, which comes fter the gross total income has been comp ng the computation provisions under of income, including the Explanation 2 to there is no correlation between section 3
n 80G. Principles governing what is not a section 37(1) have been explained in the (i.e. what is allowable, the conditions s it is allowable, the extent to which it is al so what is not allowable under section 80
n 80G specifically mentions two instan n 80G(2)(a)(iiihk) and (iiihl), i.e., cont ds Swacha Bharat Kosh and Clean Gang
CSR expenditure is not allowable as d section 80G.
n 80G(2)(a) allows deduction for 'any su e assessee in the previous year as do the deduction allowable is for sums on. Donations made to the Swacha Bha lean Ganga Fund are not allowable unde
)(a)(iiihk) and (iiihl). Contributions to t Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund are CSR ed in Schedule VII to the Companies A sallowance for deduction under section CSR can be restricted only to contribu
Funds under CSR. It is a well-establishe retation that one has to look merely at in the statute; there is no scope for inten
Your kind attention is invited to the recent taka High Court in case of Nandi Steels
C-2021), wherein it is held that attentio d to what is said and what has not been w of the above, your goodself will apprec butions made to the above two funds y for deduction under section 80G(2)(a), re is no restriction on other donations wh deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
13
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
the total ucted, in on, such ear as a sums on assessee.
into play puted by various o section 37(1) and allowable e section ubject to llowable)
0G.
nces (viz, tributions ga Fund), deduction ums paid onations'.
paid as arat Kosh er section Swacha activities
Act 2013. 80G vis- utions to ed rule of what is dment in ruling of Ltd (TS- n has to said.
ciate that will not however hich also qualify eligible

Fur
Gov mea
CAR con the sect the ded qua

The Freq circ
No.
"Question No.
Answer: No CSR expendit that expendi expenditure.
extended to e activities like rural develo agriculture e
Schedule VII sections of the This clarifica supports the allowable on Jurispruden part of CSR

In Gold
No.235
Officer on the CSR e contrib
CSR ex
Compa introdu
Jeevand
ITA y for CSR activity, the said donation e for deduction.
rthermore, amid
Covid-19
pandem vernment had provided various relaxat asures and also sought contributions to RE fund to deal with the pandemi tributions are eligible as CSR expenditu
Companies Act 2013 and for deductio tion 80G of the IT Act. Thus, it can be s intent of the legislature is not to duction under section 80G, even if the con alifies as CSR expenditure under the CA 2
e Ministry of Corporate Affairs ('MCA') ha quently Asked Questions ('FAQ') through ular no. 01/2016 dated January 12, 20
6) has clarified that as follows:
6: What tax benefits can be availed unde specific tax exemptions have been exte ture per se. The Finance Act, 2014 also ture on CSR does not form part of b
While no specific tax exemptions ha expenditure incurred on CSR, spending on Prime Minister's Relief Fund, scientific r opment projects, skill development extension projects etc, which fund p
I, already enjoys exemptions under e Income-tax Act, 1961."
ation issued by one arm of the Gov e view that deduction under section such contributions.
nce on allowability of donations (f expenditure) under section 80G of the dman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT
55/Bang/2019-Banglore ITAT ), the A r ('AO'), disallowed deduction under sect basis that the donations were in the n expenditure and not in the nature of 'v bution'. The Bangalore Tribunal observed xpenditure was required to be incurred as anies Act 2013 and as per the am uced to section 37 of the IT Act, a dedu deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
14
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
will be mic, the tion and o the PM ic. Such re under on under said that restrict ntribution
2013. as issued h General
016 (FAQ er CSR?
ended to clarifies business ave been n several research, projects, place in different ernment,
80G is (forming e IT Act
T [IT(TP)A Assessing tion 80G nature of voluntary that the s per the mendment uction for the sam
Act. H donatio
CSR co
Ganga of secti inferre for de assess for ded
In another set

First
No.176
2020(B

Allegis
No.169
2020(B
The deduction the AO, since contributions'
allowed the "assessee can
VI A, which Income". If a such paymen disallowance,
Considering t the CSR / don the business in accordance
In connection the objects of and explanat
CSR expend assessee com activities (vid category of t company duri the expenditu year under expenditure u same, your go
Jeevand
ITA me was not available under section 37
However, the assessee had claimed dedu on under section 80G. The Tribunal no ontributions to Swachh Bharat Kosh an a Fund, were specifically excluded from th ion 80G of the IT Act. In view of this, the d that other CSR qualifying donations ar eduction under section 80G, subject see satisfying the requisite conditions pr duction under section 80G of the IT Act.
t of following decisions of Bangalore Tribu
American
(India)
Pvt.
Ltd v.
AC
62/Bang/2019)
/
[TS-56
BANGALORE)-0]
services
(India)
Pvt.
Ltd v.
AC
93/Bang/2019)
/
[TS-56
BANGALORE)-O]]
n under section 80G was initially disall e CSR qualifying donations were not 'v
'. On appeal filed by the assessee, deduction under section 80G and he nnot be denied the benefit of claim under h is considered for computing 'Total assessee is denied this benefit, merely nt forms part of CSR, would lead to , which is not the intention of Legislature.
the above, the assessee has correctly dis nation expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act in co income and claimed deduction u/s 80G o e with the provisions of IT Act.
with the requirement of your office in re f the trust to whom donations have be tion as to how the same falls into the ca iture u/s 135 of Companies Act 20
mpany submits the Annual Report de Annexure 1) which contains the nat the CSR expenditure incurred by the a ing the year under reference. It may be no ure incurred by the assessee company du reference has been duly accepted as under the Companies Act 2013. In view oodself will appreciate that the claim mad deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
15
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
of the IT uction of oted that nd Clean he ambit
Tribunal re eligible to the rescribed unal;
CIT
(ITA
676-ITAT-
CIT
(ITA
678-ITAT- owed by voluntary
Tribunal eld that, r Chapter
Taxable because o double
"
sallowed omputing of the Act egards to en given tegory of 013, the on CSR ture and assessee oted that uring the s a CSR w of the de by the assessee com in accordance
In light of ab donations ma part of CSR section 80G of called for.
Should your explanation o be glad to fur
In case your g a virtual hear
Thanking you
3.2 The Assessing O the assessee in the learned counsel co conducted by the Ass be revised, and henc
263 of the Act—on enquiry—was unwarr under consideration possible, and the Ass tenable. In such circ order cannot be term the interest of the Re
Jeevand
ITA mpany for the year under reference is cor e with the provisions of laws.
bove facts, your goodself will appreciate ade by the assessee company although expenditure, is allowed as a deductio of the IT Act and therefore no adverse infe r goodself require any further clar or elaborations in respect of the above, rnish the same.
goodself is inclined to deny the above cla ring may please be fixed.
u.
You
For GBCA & Associ
Chartered Acco
Officer has already referred to t assessment order. In light of ontended that a full-fledged sessing Officer on the very issue ce, the invocation of Explanati the ground of lack of enquiry ranted. It was further submitte is one on which two views sessing Officer had taken a view cumstances, it was urged that med as erroneous insofar as it venue."
deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
16
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
rrect and that the h forming on under ference is rification, we shall aim, then urs truly, iates LLP ountants”
the said reply of the above, the d enquiry was e now sought to ion 2 to section y or inadequate d that the issue are reasonably w which is legally the assessment is prejudicial to 4. The Ld. Departm submitted the Assess assessment order reg
Act which amounts t
Officer. He according
4.1 In the rejoinder following three decisi

NTT G
3095/M

Dalal
CIT [IT  FDC L
5. We have heard parties and carefully legal position governi
Section 263 of the A Court in Malabar Ind wherein it is held tha
263, the twin conditio to the interests of Unless both these revisional power wou
5.1 In the instant
Income-tax (PCIT) h
Jeevand
ITA mental Representative (DR) on sing Officer has not made any d garding the issue of deduction to non-application of the mind o gly relied on the order of the Ld.
r, the Ld. counsel for the assess ions on the Mumbai Bench of th
Global Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT [
/Mum/2025]
and Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd
TA No. 2718/Mum/2025]
Ltd. v. PCIT [ITA No. 1031/Mum/2024]
the rival contentions advanced y perused the material placed ing the exercise of revisional jur
Act, stands well-settled by the dustrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 2
at for assumption of juri iction ons of the order being erroneous the Revenue must be cumula conditions coexist, the invo uld be without lawful foundation case, the learned Principal C as held the assessment order deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
17
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
the other hand discussion in the u/s 80G of the of the Assessing
PCIT.
see relied on the he Tribunal :
[ITA No.
d. v. Pr.
on behalf of the on record. The ri iction under decision of this 43 ITR 83 (SC)], n under Section s and prejudicial atively satisfied.
ocation of the n.
Commissioner of passed by the Assessing Officer to interest of the Reve conclusion is drawn
2 to Section 263 of t and prejudicial whe enquiries or verificati ought to have unde
Assessing Officer err deduction under Sec incurred towards co being, according to th
5.2 On a careful co force in the submissi the Assessing Officer the standard of e assessment record c raised under Secti
28.07.2022, calling
Section 80G vis-à-v expenditure. The ass setting out the nam donation, the nature relied upon judicial p in our considered vie
Jeevand
ITA o be both erroneous and pre enue. The principal grounds o are twofold: first, the invocation the Act, which deems an order ere the Assessing Officer has ion which, in the circumstances ertaken; and second, the ass red in law in allowing the asse ction 80G of the Act in respect orporate social responsibility (C he PCIT, of a non-voluntary natu onsideration of the record, we f ion of the learned counsel for th r did not proceed mechanically enquiry contemplated under clearly demonstrates that a spe ion 142(1) of the Act, vide upon the assessee to justify i vis donations which formed p sessee, in response, furnished a mes of the donee institutions, of their registration under the A precedents in support of its cla ew, clearly establish that the A deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
18
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
ejudicial to the on which such n of Explanation to be erroneous failed to make s of the case, he ertion that the essee’s claim of t of expenditure
CSR), the same ure.
find substantial he assessee that or in breach of the Act. The ecific query was e notice dated its claim under part of its CSR a detailed reply, the amount of Act, and further im. These facts,
Assessing Officer had applied his m
Coordinate Bench of v. PCIT [supra] has Officer has taken one the material before
263 cannot be val
Tribunal(supra) is rep
“12. Consider
CSR expendit nature as per does not ta exclusively fo
37(1) of the donation u/s.
categorically assessee by t the same is Bombay High the ITAT Delh
(International) juri ictional favour of the precedent. He views that CS
On this note, this count als not satisfied i
5.3 A similar positi
PCIT [supra], where
(India) Pvt. Ltd.(supra is held that while CSR
37(1) of the Act, ther under Section 80G, p
Jeevand
ITA mind and examined the issue f the Tribunal in NTT Global Ne categorically held that where e of the plausible views in law a him, the revisional juri iction lidly exercised. The relevant produced as under:
ring the second aspect of the Id. PCIT's o ture which according to the Id. PCIT wa r the provisions of Section 135 of the Com antamount to an expenditure incurre or the purpose of business as per Explana
Act and the same would not amount
. 80G of the Act. Admittedly, the Id. PCIT stated that the said issue is covered the decisions of the juri ictional coordin pending adjudication before the Hon'b h Court. Though, the ld. DR has relied on hi Bench decision in the case of the Agil l) (P.) Ltd. (Supra), there are catena of coordinate benches which has decide e assessee which the Id. AO is boun ence, we observe that the ld. AO has t
SR expenditure is eligible deduction u/s.
we find that the Id. PCIT's order does n so as the twin conditions specified u/s. 2
in the present case in hand.”
ion was taken by the Tribunal in following the decisions in a) and First American (India) Pvt
R expenses may not be allowabl re exists no statutory bar in clai provided the donation otherwise deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
19
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
e in depth. he etworks Pvt. Ltd.
e the Assessing after considering n under Section finding of the order which is on as mandatory in mpanies Act and ed, wholly and ation 2 to Section to the voluntary
T in his order has in favour of the nate benches and ble Juri ictional n the decisions of lent Technologies decisions of the ed this issue in nd to follow as taken one of the . 80G of the Act.
not hold merit on 263 of the Act is l in FDC Ltd. v.
Allegis Services t. Ltd. (supra), it le under Section iming deduction e qualifies under the said provision.
debatable issue and being one of the pos
The relevant finding o
“12. With reg
Act, the view assessee in Responsibility
Act and henc allowed. We the disallowa of the Act, bu
80G of the A deduction und
(a) Allegis S
2019)(Bang.)

(b) JMS Minin
(c) First Ame
2019)(Bang) (
Thus, the vie meaning ther results in a po initiating revis his order on 5.4 In light of the Assessing Officer h verification warrante and it is not necessar accepted the view of of non-application
Jeevand
ITA

The Tribunal rightly noted hence, the view taken by the As ssible views, cannot be branded of the Tribunal is reproduced as gard to the deduction allowed under se of Ld PCIT is that the said claim has be respect of the expenses incurred on C y (CSR), which is disallowable under sec ce deduction under section 80G should notice that, in the following cases, it has ance of CSR expenses are required to be ut there is no statutory bar in claiming th
Act if the said expenses are otherwis der that section:- ervices (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA
(Trib.) ng (P) Ltd vs. PCIT (130 taxmann.com 118) erican (India) P Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA N
(Trib.) ew taken by Ld PCIT on this issue is a reby, the action of the AO in allowing de ossible view. Accordingly, the Ld PCIT wa sion proceedings on this issue. According this issue.”
foregoing discussion, it is ev had undertaken the requisite ed in the facts and circumstan ry to reproduce his discussion w the Assessing Officer and the of the mind of the Assessin deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
20
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
that this is a ssessing Officer, d as erroneous.
s under:
ction 80G of the een made by the Corporate Social ction 37(1) of the d not have been s been held that made u/s 37(1) he deduction u/s se allowable as No.1693/Bang/
)
No. 1762/Bang/
a debatable one, duction u/s 80G as not justified in gly, we set aside vident that the enquiries and nces of the case wherever he has claim of Ld. DR ng Officer was unwarranted. It is elaborate discussion enquiry or non-appli the issue was specifi the Department that stands negated in the 5.5 It further emerg on the allowability o donations which also Bench of the Tribuna
[(2024) 160 taxman deductibility, the Ban
Ltd.(supra) and First the claim. The exis fortifies the conclusi
India Ltd. [(2007) 29
that where two view
Officer has taken one revisionary powers interpretation. The a confer juri iction u opinion for that of th a legitimate diverge discussion, we are o
Jeevand
ITA well-established that the me in the assessment order does n ication of mind, where the reco ically raised and replied to. The the order is vitiated by non-app e face of documentary evidence ges from the record that diverg of deduction under Section 80
o constitute CSR expenditure.
al in Agilent Technologies (Intern nn.com 238] has taken a view ngalore Benches in Allegis Serv t American (India) Pvt. Ltd.(supr stence of contrary but plausi ion that the issue is debatable
95 ITR 282 (SC)], Hon’ble Supr ws are reasonably possible and e such view, the Commissioner merely because he prefer authority under Section 263 is upon superior officers to subst he Assessing Officer, in matters ence of views. In the light o of the considered opinion that deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
21
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
ere absence of not imply lack of ord reveals that e submission of plication of mind to the contrary.
gent views exist
G in respect of While the Delhi national) (P.) Ltd.
w against such vices (India) Pvt.
ra) have allowed ible legal views e. In CIT v. Max reme Court held d the Assessing cannot exercise rs a different not intended to titute their own which admit of f the foregoing the assessment order passed by the erroneous or prejudi meaning of Section applied his mind to t finds support in impugned order pass set aside. The relev accordingly allowed.
6. In the result, th
Order pronoun (KAVITHA RA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 17/07/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Jeevand
ITA

Assessing Officer cannot be s icial to the interests of the Reve
263 of the Act. The Assessi the issue in question and adopt judicial pronouncements. Ac sed by the PCIT is liable to be, vant grounds of appeal of th he appeal of the assessee is stan ced in the open Court on 17/0
S
AJAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu deep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd.
22
A No. 2517/MUM/2025
aid to be either enue within the ing Officer has ed a view which ccordingly, the , and is hereby, he assessee are ds allowed.
07/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai