Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee debited Rs. 34,00,000/- towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses. The Pr. CIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, believing the expenditure was not allowable as a deduction u/s 80G and was prejudicial to revenue.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issue of CSR expenditure being claimed as a donation u/s 80G is a debatable issue. Therefore, the view taken by the AO during the assessment proceedings was a plausible view, and the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 based on a change of opinion was not sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act when the issue raised was debatable and the AO's view was plausible?
Sections Cited
263, 143(3), 144B, 80G, 37(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of ld. Pr. CIT, Mumbai – 5 [hereinafter “the ld. Pr. CIT”] dated pertaining to AY 2018-19.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act further erred in holding that the assessment order dated 21/09/2022 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The cause for the assumption of jurisdiction by the ld. Pr. CIT can be understood from the following notices:-