“section 80G donation”

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee\nare allowed

Responsibility (CSR) expenditure. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction, stating that CSR expenditure, being mandatory, lacks the element of voluntariness required for Section 80G donations. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance.", "held": "The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, while mandatory under the Companies Act, can still

MORGAN STANLEY INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

lacked voluntariness character. Thus, it is apparent that the A.O had no occasion to examine the issue of CSR expenses vis-a-vis section 80G donations and to this extent, it can be held that the assessment order suffers from infirmity being erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest

BRUKER INDIA SCIENTIFIC PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

lacked voluntariness character. Thus, it is apparent that the A.O had no occasion to examine the issue of CSR expenses vis-a-vis section 80G donations and to this extent it can be held that the assessment order suffers from infirmity being erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest

VAL ORGANICS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOMET TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Val Organics Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 4401, Kohinoor Square, B-Wing, Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai. N.C. Kelkar Marg, Opp: Shiv Sena Vs. Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Bhavan, Dadar West, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashi Mumbai- 400028 Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaacv 4456 E Appellant Respondent

this certainly lacked voluntariness character. Thus, it is apparent that the A.O had no occasion to examine the issue of CSR expenses vs. section 80G donations and to this extent, it can be held that the assessment Val Organic Pvt Ltd. 7 order suffers from infirmity being erroneous and also

ABM KNOWLEDGEWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

lacked\nvoluntariness character. Thus, it is apparent that the A.O had no occasion to examine\nthe issue of CSR expenses vis-à-vis section 80G donations and to this extent, it can\nbe held that the assessment order suffers from infirmity being erroneous and also\nprejudicial to the interest

PASHUPATI CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

under the provisions of Companies Act and\napparently the AO had no occasion to examine the issue of CSR expenses\nvis-a-vis section 80G donations. Ld. PCIT observed that the assessment\norder suffers from infirmity being erroneous and also prejudicial to the\ninterest of revenue for allowing ineligible claim ... lacked voluntariness\ncharacter. Thus, it is apparent that the A.O had no occasion to examine the\nissue of CSR expenses vis-a-vis section 80G donations and to this extent, it can\nbe held that the assessment order suffers from infirmity being erroneous and\nalso prejudicial to the interest

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

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

sine qua non for qualifying as a donation eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act. In donation eligible for deduction under section 80G donation eligible for deduction under section 80G support of this view, the learned PCIT placed reliance on the support of this view, the learned PCIT

DALAL AND BROACHA STOCK BROKING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Dalal & Broacha Stock Broking Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, 506, Maker Chambers V, 221, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. [Pan No. Aaacd5662J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

from the order of assessing officer, it is apparent that assessing officer has not examined the issue of CSR expenses vis-à-vis section 80G donation, therefore, the order passed by assessing officer is erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessment order

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

noticed that the appellant made a donation of Rs. 40,000 to Uttar BangaAnath Ashram in cash. According to section 80G, donations in cash which are in excess of Rs.10,000 are not allowed as deduction u/s.80G. Hence, the assessee's claim of deduction of Rs.40,000 u/s.80G is disallowed ... against the provisions of the Act. The appellant has nowhere claimed that donation was not paid in cash. As per the provisions of section 80G donation above Rs.10,000 if paid in cash, deduction u/s 80G is not allowed. I, therefore, reject the ground number 11 of the appellant