“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

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 463/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as stipulated in Para 4 of the aforesaid letter. Further the provision so created cannot be equated with the CSR expenditure incurred as per section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 for the reason that as per this section only companies having net profit are required

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 462/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 461/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 460/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 455/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 454/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

DCIT, Circle 6, Jaipur, Ncrb, Jpr vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 453/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

DCIT, Circle-6 Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar Jpr

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 452/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

Orchid Pharma Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 73/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(i)

community development expenses is related to Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) of the company. It was argued that the Government of India has mandated CSR expenditure as a mandatary requirement for Corporates in the country. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. AO made the addition

M/S. Source Hov India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-6(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2454/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2454/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Source Hov India Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ New No.59,61 & 63 Corporate Circle-6(2) Dowlath Towers, 8Th To 12Th Floor, Chennai. Vs. Taylors Road, Kilpauk,Chennai-600 010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-3563-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms.T.M. Suganthamala (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms.T.M. Suganthamala (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

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

would be as under. Proceedings before lower authorities 3.1 During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee spent an amount of Rs.38.54 Lacs towards CSR expenditure but disallowed the same in statement of total income. However, the assessee claimed deduction thereof u/s 80G at 100% for contribution made to Prime ... such prohibition under the act to claim impugned deduction. It was specifically provided that such contribution would be considered as part of CSR expenditure. However, Ld. AO rejected the same on the ground that donation involves voluntary act without there being any legal obligation. CSR, on the other hand, imposes

Goldman Sachs (India) Securiteis Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 763/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

grievance of the assessee is against the denial of deduction under section 80G of the Act in respect of CSR expenditure. 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 ... Tribunal. We find that in Allegis Services (India) Private Ltd. V/s ACIT, in ITA No. 1693/Bang./2019, the deduction in respect of CSR expenditure under section 80G of the Act was denied by the Revenue on a similar basis as in the present case. While deciding the issue in favour

Madhu Silica Foundation, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.R

Section 115BSection 12ASection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 80G

this purpose. During the course of appeal, the assessee was requested to provide copies of bank account, financial statements, and evidence supporting the CSR expenditures incurred by the assessee. Upon reviewing the bank account of the assessee, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee received two substantial amounts from Madhu ... entire amount in fixed deposits. The interest earned on these deposits was subsequently taxed. The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(Appeals) that the CSR expenditure had already been taxed in the hands of MSPL and therefore taxing it again in the hands of the assessee would result into double taxation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Thane, Ashar It Part, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West vs. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited, Sandozbaugh So Thane

ITA 3325/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Bank of Baroda ( Erstwhile Vijaya Bank), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1040/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sridhar .E, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 135Section 37

against the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in disallowing the CSR expenditure incurred by the Bank amounting to Rs. 2,73,39,000/- by holding that the expenditure on CSR activities is not an allowable expenditure u/s 37 post amendment ... against the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in disallowing the CSR expenditure incurred by the Bank amounting to Rs. 4,97,00.000/- by holding that the expenditure on CSR activities is not an allowable Page

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1033/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sridhar .E, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 135Section 37

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1032/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sridhar .E, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 135Section 37

DCIT 1 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 6913/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 80HSection 80I

less. Hence, this plea of the assessee deserves rejection. 7.7. The assessee has also taken a plea that this expenditure should be considered as CSR expenditure. It was not shown that this expenditure has been incurred as per the requirement of Companies Act as CSR expenditure. It may be akin

Hindusthan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Range 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 6783/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 80HSection 80I

M/S. Sonata Information, Mumbai vs. CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, disallowance of INR made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1402/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri

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

imposed by law in accordance with Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013. The intention of the legislature was never to allow deduction for CSR expenditure, as this would result in subsidizing the CSR expenditure by one-third amount. 4.4.4. The above arguments make it clear that the expenditure ... Assessee that apart from the Explanation to 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act which specifically prohibits the deduction of amount spent under CSR Expenditure as business expenditure, there is no other provision which debars the Assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80G of the Act in respect

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hudco Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3904/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR &

Section 143(3)

cannot be construed as having being incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee and proceeded to disallow the entire CSR expenditure in the assessment. It is pertinent to note that CSR is mandated by regulatory agency, Department of Public Enterprises. Hence, an expenditure which ... held that amendment by way of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015 was prospective in nature and thus CSR expenditure incurred prior 01.04.2015 was to be allowed. 25.5. In view of the aforesaid observations, the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed