Which cases are most cited on Section 135(5)?

MOIL Ltd. v. CIT (396 ITR 244) — 74 citing judgments; Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (332 ITR 602) — 66 citing judgments; CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. (372 ITR 310) — 49 citing judgments; Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (350 ITR 94) — 20 citing judgments; West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd v. CIT (52 Taxmann.com 268) — 19 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 135(5)?

BharatTax indexes 49 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 135(5) (Section 135(5)).

← All Phrases

“Section 135(5)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 135(5)?

MOIL Ltd. v. CIT (396 ITR 244) is the decision most relied on for Section 135(5), cited in 74 judgments on BharatTax. Section 263 cannot be invoked to revise an assessment where the Assessing Officer has made an enquiry, examined the details submitted by the assessee, and applied their mind to be satisfied about the admissibility of a claim.

Section References (mined)Section 135Section 135(5)49 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 135(5) is MOIL Ltd. v. CIT (396 ITR 244), cited in 74 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 135(5)

MOIL Ltd. v. CIT

396 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 263 cannot be invoked to revise an assessment where the Assessing Officer has made an enquiry, examined the details submitted by the assessee, and applied their mind to be satisfied about the admissibility of a claim.

Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

332 ITR 602 · 2011 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Compensation received for a non-compete covenant or for not carrying on a specific business activity is a capital receipt and not liable to tax as business income.

CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd.

372 ITR 310 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 solely on the grounds of 'inadequate enquiry' by the Assessing Officer. The AO's assessment order is presumed to be with application of mind, and a mere lack of detailed discussion does not automatically imply non-application of mind.

Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

350 ITR 94 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

A new undertaking is not deprived of its status as a separate and distinct entity merely because it is to a certain extent dependent on an existing unit, if the nature of the technology and mechanism of production warrants it.

West Cost Paper Mills (P.)\nLtd v. CIT

52 Taxmann.com 268 · 2014 · ITAT

citing judgments

The ITAT Mumbai, in the case of West Coast Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, concurred with the findings of the CIT(A) concerning deductions under Section 80IA.

SIAL SBEC Bioenergy Ltd. v. DCIT

120 TTJ 711 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

Steam is considered power, and its production qualifies for deductions under section 80-IA(4) even when used for captive consumption. The generation of steam is synonymous with the production of steam.

Judgments citing Section 135(5)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

essential attribute of a donation under section 80G, since the payment was made in discharge of the statutory obligation under section 135(5) of the Companies Act. The learned CIT(A) further held that Explanation 2 to section 37(1) makes it clear also characterize such expenditure as application

Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3510/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

Triveni Turbine Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle 5(3)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

without any legal compulsion. CR expenses, being a statutory mandate. lack the essential characteristic of a voluntary donation. * Mandatory Nature of CR Spending: Section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, states that companies "shall ensure" spending on SR activities, which establishes a compulsory obligation rather than a voluntary ... explicitly restricted deductions under Section 80G for CSR contributions by introducing the phrase "other than the sum spent in pursuance of CSR under Section 135(5) of the Companies Act. 2013." * Only expenses under Sections 30 to 36 of the Income Tax Act. 1961, are eligible for deduction if they

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'B' Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'B' Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood

Mckinsey Global Capabilities and Services Private Limited (Mgcs) [Mgsipl Now Merged With Mgcs], Haryana vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income-Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5314/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 5314/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mckinsey Global Capabilities & Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, Services Pvt. Ltd. (Mckinsey Global Delhi Services India Pvt. Ltd.), 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Vatika Business Park, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-12201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccm2356G Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025–26/1077218408(1) Dated 19.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

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

Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal to submit that that deduction under section 80G cannot be denied in respect of CSR expenditure incurred under section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. He submitted that the Tribunal while allowing the deduction under section 80G, has also considered clauses (iiihk) & (iiihl ... section 80G(2) to hold that contribution made under section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 other than to 5 McKinsey Global Capabilities & Services Pvt. Ltd. "Swachh Bharat Kosh" and "Clean Ganga Fund" shall be eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act. The relevant extracts

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Fis Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5002/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2020-21] Dcit Vs. Fis Global Business Solutions New Delhi India Private Limited S-405, Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash, Part Ii New Delhi Pan No.Aaach2851H Appellant Respondent Co. No. 213/Del/2025 (In Ita No.5002/Del/2025) [Assessment Year: 2020-21] Fis Global Business Vs. Dcit Solutions India Private New Delhi Limited S-405, Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash, Part Ii New Delhi Pan No.Aaach2851H Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Assessee By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Advocate Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Sh. Kashish Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal to submit that that deduction under section 80G cannot be denied in respect of CSR expenditure incurred under section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. He submitted that the Tribunal while allowing the deduction under section 80G, has also considered clauses (iiihk) & (iiihl ... section 80G(2) to hold that contribution made under section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 other than to "Swachh Bharat Kosh" and "Clean Ganga Fund" shall be eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision, as relied

M/S. Tega Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1875/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [[2020] 117 taxmann.com 535] wherein held that CSR made under section 135(5) of the Companies I.T.A. No.: 1875/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Tega Industries Limited. Act are also eligible for deduction under section ... case of Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 535 wherein it has been held that “CSR made under section 135(5) of the Companies Act are also eligible for I.T.A. No.: 1875/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Tega Industries Limited. deduction under section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta

Section 135Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(1)(ii)Section 80G(2)(a)Section 80G(5)(vi)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5602/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 135(5)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

amount for specified activities as per the provisions of Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. The expression "shall ensure" used in Section 135(5) of the Companies Act 2013 clearly implies that there is a mandate to spend 2% of average net profits of the preceding three years

JCIT OSD Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 2260/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

amount for specified activities as per the provisions of Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. The expression "shall ensure” used in Section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 clearly implies that there is a mandate to spend 2% of average net profits of the preceding three years ... find that ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) has held that the other contributions made under section 135 (5) of the Companies Act are also eligible for deduction/s 80G of Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT the Act subject to satisfying

JCIT(OSD) Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 2259/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

JCIT(OSD) Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 2258/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 1573/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 (3) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1555/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

Srei Equipment Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1019/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Srei Equipment Finance Commissioner Of Income-Tax Limited (Appeals), 86C, Vishwakarma, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Topsia Road (South), Topsia, Centre, Delhi Kolkata-700046 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakcs3431L Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Miss Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 115JSection 135Section 45Section 45ISection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Redseer Management Consulting Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 697/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Siddanna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1663/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Infosys Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

ITA No.881/Bang/2023 Infosys Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 881/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

ITA No.881/Bang/2023 ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT