ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

On further appeal before us, the AR of the Assessee submitted that provision of guarantee is not an international transaction and hence no adjustment can be made. However, in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Redington India Limited referred to by the CIT(A), we hold that adjustment in respect of guarantee provided by the Assessee to its AE requires transfer pricing adjustment.

The AR of the Assessee made the alternate submission that in case adjustment in respect of Corporate Guarantee is to be made, the amount should be restricted to 0.5% of the amount guaranteed for an AE. For this purpose, the AR relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sundaram Fastener Ltd in for the AY 2013-14 dated 26.07.2024 the Tribunal has held as under:- 3. Corporate guarantee given to the AE, wherein, the TPO made adjustment of Rs.35,64,938/-. 3.1 The TPO noted that the assessee company has provided corporate guarantee on behalf of its AE and since, no guarantee

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 4 -: fee has been collected from its AE, he was of the opinion that 1% of the value of the corporate guarantee should be adjusted and made adjustment of Rs.35,64,938/-. In this regard, the Ld.AR submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier AYs 2009-10 & 2012-13 which relied on the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Redington (India) Ltd., reported in [2021] 430 ITR 298 (Mad.) (HC) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. ACIT (LTU) reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 395 (Bom.) & 378 ITR 57 and directed that AO to restrict the disallowance at 0.5% of the guarantee value. 3.2 After hearing both the parties and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the TPO's order that this is an international transaction, but upward adjustment is now covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. (supra) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, supra, therefore, we direct the AO to restrict adjustment @0.5% of the guarantee value"

Hence, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate bench in the case of of Sundaram Fastener Ltd cited supra, the Assessing Officer may be directed to restrict the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to 0.5% of the amount guaranteed.

3.2 The next issue on appeal is regarding disallowance u/.14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and disallowed a sum of at Rs.67,80,000/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 18,90,000 under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The Assessee had suo moto disallowed a sum of Rs.73,710/- under Section 14A, the Assessing Officer has included that amount also and arrived at the total disallowance rounded off Rs.86,70,0000/-.

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 5 -: On appeal the CIT(A) directed that in respect of disallowance of Rs.67,80,000/-towards interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) the AO should verify whether the Assessee has own funds which will cover the investments which have yielded exempt income and if so, delete the addition of Rs.67,80,0000/-. He has sustained the balance addition made under Rule 8D(2) (iii) and the suo moto additions made by the Assessee.

On further appeal before us, we have heard both the parties. The Assessing Officer is directed to disallow under Rule 8D(2)(iii), 0.5% of the investments made in shares which have actually yield the exempt income during the year, following the decision in the of Delhi Special bench in the case of ACIT v Vireet Investment P Ltd, 165 ITD 27 Del (SB). Out of this amount the AO is also directed to exclude a sum of Rs.73,710/- disallowed by the Assessee suo moto and only the balance amount if any should be added. If the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iil) is less than Rs.73,710/- disallowed by the Assessee, then no further disallowance is required to be made. With this direction, a ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

3.3 The Next issue is regarding allowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB). The Assessee has raised an additional ground stating that weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) should be granted on the entire expenditure incurred in the R&D facility notwithstanding the fact that a lower amount has been approved by DSIR for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB).

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 6 -: Assessee had claimed 200% as weighted deduction in respect of revenue and capital expenditure incurred in their R&D facility approved by the DSIR. Though the Assessee filed a copy of the Form 3CL from DSIR, the AO sought to authenticate it by writing it to DSIR. As there was no response from DSIR, the AO disallowed the entire amount of Rs.92,67,207/- claimed by the Assessee.

On appeal, the CIT(A) found that the Assessee had incurred Rs. 71,39,357/- as Revenue expenditure and Rs.10,63,925/- of capital expenditure, totaling to Rs.82,03,282/-. As 100% of revenue expenditure had been debited to P&L, balance weighted deduction claimed will be Rs.92,67,207/- (Rs.71,39,357/- towards 100% of revenue expenditure and Rs.21,27,850 towards 200% of capital expenditure). The DSIR had approved of Rs.60,90,000/- of Revenue expenditure and the entire capital expenditure for weighted deduction. The CIT(A) directed the Assessee to file Form 3CL before the Assessing Officer, who should then grant weighted deduction as per the certificate in Form 3CL issued by DSIR. The CIT(A) had also directed that any excess claim over and above the eligible amount as per the DSIR certificate cannot be allowed under Section 37.

Aggrieved, the Assessee is on appeal before us.

The AR submitted that the Form 3CL is furnished by the DSIR directly to the department also. Hence, there is no question of the assessee filing a proper Form 3CL before the Assessing Officer.

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 7 -: However, the Assessee may file the Form 3CL received from DSIR to the Assessing Officer if not already done. In any event, the AR submitted this issue of quantum of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) has been decided in their favour by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee's own case in to 2868 of 2024 dated 05.05.2025 for the AYs: 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2018-19 in Para 10.12 to 10.14. The Tribunal in the relevant para has held as under:- "10.12 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and in the light of judicial pronouncements, cited supra, we hold that in the present case since the deduction is relating to the assessment year 2016-17 [where the amended law is applicable w.e.f. 1stday of April, 2016), which is prior to the Income Tax (Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2016, with effect from 01.07.2016 of Rule 6(7A) of the I.T. Rules], deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act has to be allowed on the basis of the expenditure as recorded by the assessee in the books of account. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has not disputed the correctness of the claim of expenditure incurred on scientific research. The contention of the DR that the amendment to Rule 6(7A) is procedural cannot be accepted, since the amended rule stipulates a condition that apart from approval of in-house R & D facility of assessee, the expenditure also has to be quantified by the prescribed authority for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Since, the amended Rule 6(7A) affects the substantive right of the assessee; it cannot be termed merely as procedural. Moreover, the co-ordinate Benches of Bangalore Tribunal in case of M/s. Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) have clearly held that prior to 01.07.2016 Form 3CL has no legal sanctity and it is only w.e.f. 01.07.2016 with the amendment to Rule 6(7A) of the I.T. Rules, the quantification of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act has significance. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that if the power of quantification of weighted deduction already exists with DSIR prior to 01.07.2016, then, there was no necessity to make amendment to Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act is liable to be allowed instead of restricting it to the quantum of claim.

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 8 -: 10.13. We have also considered the contention of the Id. DR. We note that the provisions of section 35 of the Act is a beneficial section and sub-section (1) of section 35(2AB) and sub-section (3) of section 35 of the Act are identical. Section 35(2AB)(1) of the Act suggests that the in-house R&D facility should be approved by DSIR and the said section does not provide that the approval from DSIR is required in respect of the expenditure eligible for weighted deduction. Further, section 35(2AB)(1) of the Act refers to "any" expenditure, therefore, the weighted deduction is to be allowed on expenditure "so incurred". Thus, it is amply clear that sub-section (3) of section 35 of the Act has no application to be conjointly read for the purpose of allowance of weighted deduction prior to amendment to Rule 6 of Income Tax Rules for the reason that after amendment to Rule 6 of Income Tax Rules, under sub-rule (7A)(b)(ii) of IT Rules, the prescribed authority shall furnish electronically its report in Part B of Form No. 3CL towards quantification of expenditure and eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Prior to amendment to Rule 6 of the IT Rules, the provision of section 35(3) of the Act does not provide the scope for referring to DSIR for determining the amount of expenditure eligible for deduction. If at all the DSIR has the authority to decide the eligible expenditure prior to 01.07.2016, then, the intention to amend Rule 6 of IT Rules w.e.f. 01.07.2016 does not arise. Thus, the contention of the Id. DR stands rejected.

10.14 In view of the above facts and circumstances and in light of the above cited judicial pronouncements, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow weighted deduction as claimed by the Assessee in respect of the entire expenditure both revenue and capital incurred in their R&D facilities which has been approved by the DSIR. The Additional grounds by the Assessee is admitted and allowed.

Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in Assessee's own case, the AO is directed to grant Weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) in respect of the entire expenditure incurred by the Assessee and direct the AO to not restrict it to the amounts

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 9 -: approved by the DSIR in Form 3CL. With the above direction, the additional ground raised by the Assessee is allowed.

IT(TP)A No.3/CHNY/2025 for A.Y 2013-14 (Assessee's Appeal).

3.4 The first issue is regarding Transfer Pricing adjustment towards corporate guarantee fee that should have been charged by the appellant in respect of guarantee and comfort letter issued to the creditors of the Associated concern.

Similar issue was considered in the appeal IT(TP) A 2/CHNY/2025 for the assessment year 2012-13 above. As decided in the appeal for that assessment year, following the decision of the Coordinate bench in the case of Sundaram Fastener Ltd cited supra, the Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to 0.5% of the amount guaranteed.

3.5 The Second issue is regarding the disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer has disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D @ rate of 1% of the annual average of monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment and has also added sum of ₹ 94,398/- disallowed by the assessee in the return. The Assessing officer has arrived at the total disallowance under Section 14 A at ₹25,92,856/-.

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 10 -: On appeal, it was submitted before the CIT(A) that for the assessment year under Appeal viz., 2013-14, the AO has applied amended provisions of Rule 8D which came into force on 2nd June 2016. However, CIT(A) following the order of his predecessor for the assessment year 2015 16, confirmed the disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is on appeal before us.

The AR of the Assessee pointed out, that for the assessment year 2015-16 when the disallowance u/s 14A was made based on amended rule 8D, the Tribunal in their order in dated 31.03.2021, at paragraph number 8 has set aside the assessment on this issue observing as under:

8. The only objection raised by the learned council for the assessee is that rule 8D(2) or the rules to section 14A of the Act has no application for the assessment year and the consideration that is 2015-16, but the AO has wrongly applied. We find that the order passed by the learned CIT appeals needs to consider a fresh thus we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT appeals and we remit the matter back to the AO for examination whether rule 8D of the rules applies to the present assessment year and a consideration or not and decide the issue in accordance with law. Hence the first ground of appeal allowed for statistical purposes Therefore, for the Assessment Year under appeal i.e., 2013-14 also, the amended Rule 8D will not be applicable and the disallowance under Section 14A has to be made as per the earlier Rule 8D. Therefore, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A may be remitted to the files of the AO to consider the disallowance as per the Rule 8D applicable to the Assessment Year under appeal. The directions given for the assessment year 2012-13 (supra), namely,

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 11 -: (i) verify whether there is sufficient own funds to cover the investments earning exempt income and if so no disallowance to be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (ii) the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) to be restricted to 0.5% of the investments which has actually yielded exempt income during the year, would equally apply for determining disallowance u/s14A for this year also. With the above direction for computation of disallowance the issue regarding the disallowance under Section 14A is set aside to the files of the AO for deciding the issue in accordance with law.

3.6 The next issue is regarding the allowance of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB). The Assessee had raised it by way of additional grounds. The ground is admitted. The AO at Paragraph no. 11 of his order has observed that the assessee has claimed weighted deduction and the section 35(2AB) of ₹2,11,66,481/- whereas as per the Form 3CL dated 13th June 2016, the DSIR has approved weighted direction only to the extent of ₹2,05,46,481/-. AO disallowed the balance of ₹6,20,000/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) does not appear to have considered the issue. Assessee is on appeal before ITAT.

The issue of deduction under Section 35(2AB) remitted back to the files of CIT(A) for consideration. The issue is similar to that considered for the AY 2012-13 in IT(TP) A 3/CHNY/2025 supra. CIT(A) will take into account the decision we had taken, for the reasons stated therein, in respect of computation of weighted

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 12 -: deduction under Section 35(2AB) for the Assessment Years 2012-13, supra, i.e., weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) has to be granted on the entire expenditure incurred by the Assessee in their R&D facility approved by DSIR notwithstanding the fact that DSIR has approved a lower figure for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB). With that direction, this issue may be set aside to the file of CIT(A) for fresh consideration. This ground of appeal is considered as allowed for statistical purposes.

IT(TP) A 4/CHNY/2025 - Assessment Year 2017-18

As held in those appeals above and respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of of Sundaram Fastener Ltd cited supra, the Assessing Officer may be directed to restrict the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to at 0.5% of the amount guaranteed.

2. The next issue is regarding disallowance under Section 14A. For this Assessment Year, the amended provisions of Rule 8D, with effect from 2nd June 2016 will be applicable and the disallowance should be restricted to 1% of the average investment which you have actually yielded exempt income during the year. The Assessing Officer has IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 13 -: computed 1% of annual average of monthly averages of opening and closing value of the total investments aggregating to 61,58,06,472.41/- and disallowed ₹61,58,064.72/-. The Assessing Officer has not deducted the sum of ₹1,35,650/- being the amount already disallowed by the Assessee in the return of income.

On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance holding "In the instant appeal, the amended provisions of Rule 8D apply and the AO has rightly applied the same to make disallowances under the second limb on account of various items of indirect expenditure on proportionate basis". The assessee is on appeal before us.

The only submission of the AR is that the disallowance of 1% on the average investments should be restricted to investments from which exempt income has been earned. The Explanation to 14A which provides for computation of disallowance in respect of investments which have not yielded exempt income during the year was introduced by Finance Act 2022, is prospective in nature and is applicable only from the Assessment Year 2022-23 as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT VS Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (448 ITR 0674 Delhi). Accordingly, AO is directed to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to 1% of the average investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the year. From such an amount, ₹1,35,650/- disallowed by the assessee in their return should be reduced. If the disallowance computed as above at 1% of IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 14 -: investments yielding exempt income is less than 1,35,650/-, then no further disallowance need be made under Section 14A.

3. The next ground is against the disallowance of deduction and the Section 35(2AB). The appellant had claimed weighted deduction in respect of revenue expenditure incurred to the extent of ₹5,53,99,191 but the DSIR has restricted the revenue expenditure to ₹466.26 lakhs for the purpose of weighted deduction. The AO disallowed the entire claim of ₹7,73,42,493 under Section 35(2AB) on the ground that DSIR approval in Form 3CL was not furnished. On appeal, CIT(A) directed the allowance of weighted deduction as per the DSIR certificate but decided that excess claim over and above the eligible amount as per DSIR certificate of Rs. 87.73 lakhs cannot be allowed under Section 37. Aggrieved, the assessee is an appeal before us.

In respect of deduction and the Section 35(2AB), courts have been consistently holding that the expenditure approved by the DSIR will be eligible for weighted deduction. This certificate is only for the purpose of quantifying the R&D expenditure for the purpose of weighted deduction and the Section 35(2AB). This would not mean that the other expenditure incurred by the assessee in the approved R&D facility cannot be entertained for deduction and other provisions of Section 35. The Madras High Court in the case of Tube investments of India limited v CIT (260 ITR 94), has held that the fact that an Assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35,

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 15 -: will not bar the same Expenditure being allowable u/s 35(1)(iv). Similar view has been taken by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Parabolic Drugs Ltd (141 TTJ 0662 Del). Following these decisions, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the balance of revenue expenditure to the extent of ₹87.73 lakhs incurred in their R&D facility, which was not considered by the DSIR for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB), under section 35(1)(i).

In the intimation under Section 143(1), Employee contribution under Section 36(1)(va) was disallowed on the ground that it has been mentioned in the Auditor's report that some portion of the payments have been made beyond the due date under the relevant Act.

The Appellant submitted copies of the Auditor's Report and pointed out that there was an inadvertent wrong reporting by the Auditors of the dates of payment of the Employee contribution. All the payments were made within the time under the relevant Act and IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 16 -: because of the wrong mentioning of the dates in the Auditor report (due to reversal of dates and months), this disallowance has arisen. CBDT circular No 669 of 1993 dated 25.10.1993 provides that any disallowance made in the intimation u/s 143(1) under Section 43B, can be rectified under Section 143(3) if proof of payment is furnished. Proof of payment of the amounts in time is furnished by way of Audit Report and pointing out of the mistakes made therein in respect of dates of payment of Employees' contribution. In view of the CBDT Circular, the AO is directed to give an opportunity to the Assessee to give the relevant proofs of dates of payment and allow the same if it is paid within the due date provided under the relevant Act.

1. The first issue is grant of deprecation on brand value. The CIT(A) in his order has observed that the Assessee company acquired two Units at Jabalpur on-going concern basis for a consideration of Rs.320 lakhs which included the intangible assets towards brand value amounting to Rs.16 lakhs. The Assessee claimed depreciation at 25% on the intangible assets of the brand value.

The claim for depreciation was disallowed by the AO. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the claim for depreciation on the Brand value for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was allowed by the CIT(A) vide his order in dated 23.07.2018. The ld.CIT(A) has also observed that the depreciation on brand value was decided in favour of the Assessee by the CIT(A) for the assessment years, 2008-

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 17 -: 09, 2009-10 and 2015-16. The department does not seem to have questioned the same in ITAT for those years. The Coordinate Bench in Assessee's own case in 140 and 117/CHNY/2025 dated 23.06.2025 has allowed the claim of the Assessee for depreciation on brand value observing as under: "12. On perusal of the records, we find that their SSC has claimed depreciation of brand value regularly in block of assets from the assessment year 2007-08. Issue of allowing depreciation on brand value a subject to scrutiny and disallowed the same for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2015-16. On appeal it was held in favour the SC by deleting the disallowance by the Ld CIT(A) in the respective assessment years. We note that the revenue has not preferred any further appeal on the same issue. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Following the decision of the Ld CIT(A) For the earlier assessment years, we do not find any information in the order of the L.d. CIT(A) by dismissing the ground of appeal raised by the revenue.

13. Since the issue and facts are identical in the assessment years 2014-15 and 2018-19 in & 117/CHNY/2025, Taking a consistent view, we do not find any information in the order of the Ld CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on brand value and hence, we are inclined to confirm the order of the Ld CIT(A) by dismissing the ground of appeal raised by the revenue in these assessment years also."

In view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in Assessee's own case for the earlier years referred above, the order of the CIT(A) allowing depreciation of Rs.26,280/- on the brand value claimed for the AY 2017-18 may be confirmed and the Revenue's appeal dismissed.

2. The next issue is non-deduction of Tax out of payment on Export Commission to Non-Residents. The Assessing Officer disallowed a IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 18 -: sum of Rs.1,70,50,000/- being export selling commission paid without deduction of tax at source. On appeal the CIT(A) following the decision of the ITAT in Assessee's own case in AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 in and 1525/Chny/2014 dated 19.05.2016. In of 2025 dated 23.06.2025 for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2018-19, the Tribunal has allowed the deduction of export commission without deduction of tax at source observing as under.

15. We have heard both the parties they use their materials available on record and have gone through orders of the authorities below we know that the issue of disallowance of payment of Commission on export u/s 40a(i) of the act is squarely covered by both the tribunal and honourable jurisdiction of High Court decisions (cited supra) in favour of the Assessee. This is the fax and circumstances remain the same in the impugned assessment year, respectfully following the decisions of the honourable jurisdictional High Court and tribunal, we confirm the order of the Ld CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of Commission on exports by dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by revenue Revenue is on further appeal before us against the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. As the facts are identical with those dealt with by the Tribunal for the earlier years referred supra, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench we dismiss the revenue’s appeal on this issue.

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 19 -: The company had made donation to the extent of ₹1,27,08,646/- which was set of against their CSR obligations as required under the Companies Act. The company also claim this amount as deduction under Section 80G as all the recipients satisfy the requirement of deduction under 80G in respect of donations made to these charitable entities, AO disallowed the claim under Section 80G stating that Explanation has been introduced to Section 37 that expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and hence shall not be allowed under Section 37. Claim of this amount under Section 80G will defeat the very intention and purpose of the legislation. This is nothing but circumvention of both the intention of legislation as well as provisions of Income Tax Act.

On appeal, CIT(A) allowed the claim of the Assessee following the judgements of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in L&T Finance Limited v DCIT (167 Taxmann.com 503) and the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Interglobe Technology Quotient (P) Ltd v ACIT (163 Taxmann.com 542). Aggrieved, the Department is on appeal before the Tribunal.

We find that the Coordinate Bench in Assessee's own case in for the Assessment years 2013-14, 2014- 15 and 2018-19 dated 23.06.2025 has allowed the claim by holding in para 19 as under: -

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 20 -: 19. We have heard both the parties perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by the coordinate bench of ITAT Chennal in the case of M/s.Source Hov India Private Limited V. DCITITA No.2454/Chny/2024, wherein it has been held that CSR expenditure, made to eligible donee apart from Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund would be eligible to claim the deduction under Section 80G of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal are as follows:

"5. We further find that bouquet of activities that have been permitted under CSR Scheme, inter-alia, include contribution to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund or any other fund set up by the Government for socio economic development. The Impugned donation as made by the assessee is one of the prescribed modes of CSR Activities.

Tax benefits for Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund

Under the existing provisions of section 80G of the Income-tax Act, a deduction is allowed in computing the total income of a person in respect of donations made to certain funds and charitable institutions. The deduction is allowed at the rate of fifty percent of the amount of donations made except in the case of donations made to certain funds and institutions formed for a social purpose of national importance, where it is allowed at the rate of one hundred percent, such as the National Defence Fund set up by the Central Government, the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, the Prime Minister's Armenia Earthquake Relief Fund, the Africa (Public Contributions- India) Fund, the National Children's Fund, the National Foundation for Communal Harmony etc.

"Swachh Bharat Kosh" has been set up by the Central Government to mobilize resources for improving sanitation facilities in rural and urban areas and school premises through the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. Similarly, Clean Ganga Fund has been established by the Central

IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 21 -: Government to attract voluntary contributions to rejuvenate river Ganga. With a view to encourage and enhance people's participation in the national effort to improve sanitation facilities and rejuvenation of river Ganga, it is proposed to amend section 80G of the Act so as to incentivise donations to the two funds. It is proposed to provide that donations made by any donor to the Swachh Bharat Kosh and donations made by domestic donors to Clean Ganga Fund will be eligible for a deduction of hundred per cent from the total income. However, any sum spent in pursuance of Corporate Social Responsibility under sub-section (5) of section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, will not be eligible for deduction from the total income of the donor.

The existing provisions of section 10(23C) of the Act provide for exemption from tax in respect of the income of certain charitable funds or institutions like the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund; the Prime Minister's Fund (Promotion of Folk Art); the Prime Minister's Aid to Students Fund; the National Foundation for Communal Harmony. Considering the importance of Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund, it is also proposed to amend section 10(23C) of the Act so as to exempt the income of Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund from income-tax. These amendments will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years"

It could be seen that though deduction has been granted for donation to these funds, however, it has specifically been made clear that any sum spent in pursuance of Corporate Social Responsibility under sub-section (5) of section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 towards these funds will not be eligible for deduction from the total income of the donor. We find that there is no such restriction for donation out of CSR funds to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund."

Respectfully following the said decision of the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal on this issue, the appeal of the Assessee on this issue may be allowed.

Order pronounced on 20th day of August, 2025 at Chennai.