“CSR expenditure”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 37449 judgments

The decision most relied on for CSR expenditure is JMS Mining (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (130 Taxmann.com 118), cited in 93 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on CSR expenditure

JMS Mining (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT

130 Taxmann.com 118 · 2021 · ITAT

citing judgments

Donations made as part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure are eligible for deduction under Section 80G if all conditions of Section 80G are satisfied. Such expenses are not automatically disallowed merely because they are CSR expenditure, in the absence of specific amendments to Section 80G similar to those in Section 37(1).

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.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT

96 ITD 186 · 2005 · ITAT

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a Government undertaking towards implementation of the 20-point programme, as per specific directions of the Government, is allowable as business expenditure, even if voluntary and not statutorily mandated.

ACIT v. Jindal Power Ltd.

70 Taxmann.com 389 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred voluntarily for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) purposes is not disallowed if Section 37(1) Explanation 2, which applies to statutory obligations, is not triggered. Additionally, Section 37 is prospective from AY 2015-16, making it inapplicable for AY 2013-14 disallowances.

Agilent Technologies (International) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

160 Taxmann.com 238 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure cannot be claimed as a deduction under Section 80G because it is a statutory mandate and lacks the voluntariness required for donations. This principle applies even when CSR contributions are made to funds like the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund or other eligible charitable institutions.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

39 SOT 17 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred to promote business or bring goodwill to the assessee is allowable as a deduction. However, notional losses arising from issuing shares below market price are not deductible.

L&T Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

167 Taxmann.com 503 · 2024 · ITAT

citing judgments

Contributions made by a company for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to a registered charitable institution can be treated as akin to corpus donations, potentially allowing for deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, provided other conditions are met.

Alubound Dacs India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

163 Taxmann.com 536 · 2024 · ITAT

citing judgments

Expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities is an allowable deduction under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, provided the conditions stipulated in section 80G are met, irrespective of being part of CSR expenditure.

Judgments citing CSR expenditure

Sequel Logistics Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 1147/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

following Apex Court ruling the Revision orders passed by Ld. PCIT are not sustainable in law. 8. On merits of the case, whether the CSR expenditure is allowable u/s. 80G of the Act is also no more res integra by a series of decisions by various Co-ordinate Benches

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 792/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, 17Th Floor, One World Center, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400013 Pan : Aaacb6134D V/S

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40

present case. Accordingly, the AO disallowed a deduction of ₹ 4,22,50,000/- claimed by the assessee under section 80G of the Act on CSR expenditure. 17. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue following the decision of the Mumbai ... both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is undisputed that the assessee has not claimed the CSR expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, and its claim is only restricted to section 80G of the Act. Further, the learned CIT(A) also

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 494/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40

Aditya Birla Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4821/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. S.Jayaram, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43BSection 80G

same payments disallowed as CSR expenses in the computation of income. Referring to Explanation 2 to section 37(1), the AO held that since CSR expenditure is not allowable as a business expense, it also cannot qualify as a 'voluntary donation under section 8oG.The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance ... decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in Agilent Technologies (International) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [(2024) 160 taxmann.com 238], where it was held that CSR expenditure, being mandatory under the Companies Act, 2013, is treated as non-business expenditure and is not allowable under section 37. The Tribunal further noted

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur vs. Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Jamshedpur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Uranium Corporation Of India Jamshedpur. Limited, Vs. Turamardie Mines, Sundar Nagar, East Singhbhum-832107 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacu 2207 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(g)Section 37Section 37(1)

that the appellant company is a public sector company in strategic department of atomic energy, engaged in querying and mining and has been incurring CSR expenditure as per the guidelines of Ministry of Heavy Industries which is mandatory for the appellant company. It was submitted by the ld. AR that ... until the CSR expenditure made compulsory under Companies Act, 2013 via Section 135 and such expenditure being made disallowable under Section 37 w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-16, the company had been claiming such expenditure as allowable. Only in A.Y. 2009-10, CSR expenditure was disallowed even there was no specific provision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1663/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 14ASection 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 14ASection 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

specific issues: (i) allowance of deduction under section 80G in respect of donations which were, in substance, in the nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenditure, and (ii) failure to examine the allowability of Rs.59,03,79,923/- claimed as write-off of GST input credit. 4. The PCIT observed ... that the assessee had added back the entire CSR expenditure of Rs.10,90,50,000/- in its computation of income but simultaneously claimed deduction under section 80G for Rs.5,00,00,000/- , being 50% of the donation made to registered trusts. According to the PCIT, this amounted to an indirect

Ttec India Customer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ttec India Customer Solutions Pr.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Ttec Ahmedabad Vs. Income Tax-3 Opp: L.J.College Vejalpur Off: Sg Road, Makarba Ahmedabad. Fatewadi Bo, Fatewadi Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccm 1005A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vishal Kabra, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

accepted the claim without any adverse inference. The assessee had also made donations amounting to Rs.15,01,827/-, of which Rs.14,16,827/- represented CSR expenditure. The CSR amount was suo motu disallowed by the assessee in its computation of income. The assessee, however, claimed a deduction under section ... Rs.14,16,827/-, it had also claimed deduction under section 80G of Rs.12,40,664/-, which according to the PCIT was not allowable, as CSR expenditure is not voluntary and is excluded under section 37(1), and hence cannot qualify under section 80G either ii. That the assessee claimed

Acg Pam Pharma Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2734/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain(Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Am) Acg Pam Pharma Technologies Pcit-4 Private Limited Room No. 629 127, Kandivali Industrial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Estate, Charkop, Kandivali W M.K. Road Mumbai-400 067. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaacp4776H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RaiFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Ved

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 30Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

passed the impugned order by holding that deduction under section 80G of the Act was erroneously allowed, since donation was in nature of CSR expenditure which is not voluntary in nature and thus not eligible for deduction. It was further held that the issue of section 80G/CSR was not discussed ... take up the first issue/question and after hearing the parties at length on this issue, we noticed that Ld. PCIT has held that since CSR expenditure is mandatory therefore the same cannot constitute a donation, which is voluntary and hence not eligible for deduction under 3 ACG Pam Pharma Technologies

Invesco(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble DRP erred in holding that the donations/payments made by Appellant were part of CSR expenditure. 7. Without prejudice to grounds 4 & 5 above, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AD erred ... donations should be considered. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, although, the DRP stated that donations by the assessee is out of CSR expenditure, but, the fact remains that, the said donation is a normal donation, but, not out of CSR. Therefore, once the assessee has paid donation

The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central) - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3035/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, Vs (Central)-5, Aayakar Bhawan, J.K. Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 80G

Mills Limited law in passing order u/s 263 of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order for making disallowance of CSR Expenditure claimed as deduction u/s 80G of Chapter VIA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 48,54,723/- despite the fact that ... CMRF of Rs. 31,00,000/- and claimed 100% deduction. Thus, the assessee has not made payment of CSR expenses as voluntary. The CSR expenditure by assessee forms part of mandatory 3 The Ruby Mills Limited requirement of facts and consequently not eligible for deduction under section 80G. Allowing deduction

First Advantage Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3291/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Ms. Sonakshi Jhunjhunwala, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. D/R

Section 115JSection 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

highly debatable issue as the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal have taken a consistent view that CSR expenditure can be claimed as expenditure u/s 80G of the Act in the cases of Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. (ITA No. 1795/Mum/2023, order dated 18.08.2023), Allegis Services India

Raj Shipping Agencies Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2853/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Raj Shipping Agencies Limited Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Banaji Mansion, 17 Banaji Street Fort, Vs 5, Aayakarbhawan, Mumbai – 400023. Mumbai-400020. [Pan No. Aaacr3051R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80G

revenue submits that there is no reference in the assessment order that assessing officer has examined the issue of donation vis- à-vis CSR expenditure. The CSR expenditure is statutory obligation and no such deduction is eligible for such expenditure. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue also relied upon ... Agilent Technologies (International) (P) Ltd. vs ACIT (2024) 160 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi-Trib) wherein it was held 3 Raj Shipping Agencies Limited that CSR expenditure are not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1), so no deduction under section 80G is allowable. 4. In the rejoinder submission

DCIT, CC-2(2), Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation Limited, Hide Lane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Aryan Mining & Trading Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Corporation Limited, 110, Shantipally, 4 Th Floor, P-1, Hide Lane, Johar Building, Vs. Pin-700073, West Bengal Pin-700073, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aadca7247B Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsian, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 05.10.2017 determining total Income of Rs. 26,86,43,300/- inter alia making the disallowance of CSR expenditure amounting Rs. 46,36,000/- and disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules amounting

ACIT, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 140/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

taxable in India and accordingly liable for TDS. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the AO to restrict the disallowance of CSR expenditure without appreciating that the corporates are required to incur the CSR expenditure out of the taxable profits and therefore the same cannot be claimed ... with regard to the disallowance of deduction of 80G in respect to expenditure claimed under CSR. 18. The Ld.AR submitted that the CSR expenditure spent by the assessee is not an allowable expenditure u/s.37 of the Act. However, the allocated CSR amount paid to the institutions which are approved u/s.80G

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ltu-1, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 139/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

ACIT, Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 117/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

Ntt Global Networks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT -6, Mumbai

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

ITA 3095/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR AR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)Section 80G(5)

mind, accepted by the Assessing Officer. 3. Re: Deduction claimed u/s. 80G amounting to Rs. 51,00,000/- disallowed as it pertains to CSR expenditure 3.1 The Learned PCIT grossly erred in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s. 80G on the ground that the donations were classified as Corporate Social Responsibility ... CSR) expenditure in its books of accounts. 3.2 The Learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the donations made by the Appellant qualifies for deduction u/s. 80G, as they were made to a registered and eligible charitable institution and fulfills all the conditions prescribed under the said section. 3.3 `The Learned

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

ITA 2718/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80G

towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and has claimed 50% of deduction under section 80G. Deduction is claimed purely on CSR expenditure on which deduction under section 80G is not allowable. The ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that CSR expenditure by assessee form part of mandatory requirement of Companies ... CSR initiative of the assessee company which amounts to INR 22,81,29,964/-. It is observed that the assessee has duly disallowed CSR expenditure of INR 22,81,29,964/-debited to the statement of profit and loss under section 37 of the Act. DRP rejected the claim