“specified fund”

Chapter III - Incomes Not IncludedSection 10(4D)Section 10(4D) / Rule 21AK63 judgments

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

Section 80G, on the other hand, falls under Chapter VI-A and provides for deduction in respect of sums paid as donations to specified funds and institutions while computing total income. Therefore, the two provisions operate in distinct fields. 108. In the present case, the assessee has admittedly disallowed

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

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

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

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"D\" BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &\nSHRI MAKARAND

ASCENTECH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1686/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: MS Sree Lekha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

issue of shares is received-\n(i) by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund for a specified fund]; or\n(ii) by a company from a class or classes of persons as may be notified\" by the Central Government in this behalf ... being goodwill,\nknow-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises\nor any other business or commercial rights of similar nature,\nwhichever is higher;\n[aa] “specified fund\" means a fund established or incorporated in\nIndia in the form of a trust or a company or a limited liability\npartnership

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

issue of shares is received-\n(i) by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company\nor a venture capital fund for a specified fund]; or\n(ii) by a company from a class or classes of persons as may be\nnotified" by the Central Government in this behalf ... being goodwill, know-how,\npatents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises\nor any other business or commercial rights of similar\nnature,\nwhichever is higher;\n[aa] “specified fund” means a fund established or\nincorporated in India in the form of a trust or a\ncompany or a limited liability partnership

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

issue of shares is received-\n(i) by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company\nor a venture capital fund for a specified fund]; or\n(ii) by a company from a class or classes of persons as may be\nnotified" by the Central Government in this behalf ... being goodwill, know-how,\npatents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises\nor any other business or commercial rights of similar\nnature,\nwhichever is higher,\n[aa] “specified fund” means a fund established or\nincorporated in India in the form of a trust or a\ncompany or a limited liability partnership

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, 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)

allowed. • The said claim, as discussed above, is supported by the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill 2014 with restriction placed only in relation to specified funds under section 80G, clarification issued by MCA and multiple favourable decisions. I have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. I find that ... allowed. • The said claim, as discussed above, is supported by the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill 2014 with restriction placed only in relation to specified funds under section 80G, clarification issued by MCA and multiple favourable decisions. I have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. I find that

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA &For Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 2(18)Section 2(71)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 8

issue of shares is received—(i)by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund or a specified fund; or(ii)by a company from a class or classes of persons as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf:Provided further ... assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature,whichever is higher;(aa)"specified fund" Page - 12 - of 16 means a fund established or incorporated in India in the form of a trust or a company or a limited

NYATI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: \nDepartment by

Section 115JSection 135Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

said claim, as discussed above, is supported by the Explanatory\nMemorandum to Finance Bill 2014 with restriction placed only in\nrelation to specified funds under section 80G, clarification issued by\nMCA and multiple favourable decisions.\nI have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. I find that\nthe issue

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BLUE JAY FINLEASE PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4416/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Blue Jay Finlease Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, Circle-4(2), 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi Delhi-110001 Pan: Aaacb5215H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Ca Department By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

issue of shares is received — 1. by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund or a specified fund; or; 2. by a company from a class or classes of persons as maybe notified by the Central Government in this behalf. As per Explanation ... case where the consideration for issue of shares is received from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund (VCF) or specified fund, the aforesaid section is not applicable. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal provisions, the applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) is tabulated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), PUNE vs. SANGHVI BEAUTY AND TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well\nas Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2120/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(x)

nissue of shares is received-\n(i) by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company\nor a venture capital fund for a specified fund]; or\n(ii) by a company from a class or classes of persons as may be\nnotified by the Central Government in this behalf ... being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights,\ntrademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or\ncommercial rights of similar nature, whichever is higher,\n[(aa) \"specified fund\" means a fund established or incorporated in\nIndia in the form of a trust or a company or a limited liability\npartnership

JSW INDUSTRIAL GASES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80G

allowing or disallowing expenditure incurred for business purposes. On the other hand, section 80G of the Act provides deduction for donation made to specified funds and institutions while computing the taxable income of the assessee. The disallowance of CSR expenditure under explanation 2 to section

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ITA 1252/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

nThe said claim, as discussed above, is supported by the\nExplanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill 2014 with restriction\nplaced only in relation to specified funds under section 80G,\nclarification issued by MCA and multiple favourable decisions.\nI have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. I find that\nthe issue

STRATA GEOSYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8, MUMBAI

ITA 2447/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Strata Geosystems (India) P. Ltd. Pcit Plot No. A-15/16, Sabnam 6Th Floor House, Central Cross Road B Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Andheri East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 093. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaics3717K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

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

such payments are made to institutions approved under the said section. II. Section 80G provides deduction in respect of donations made to specified funds, trusts, or institutions, subject to certain conditions. It operates independently of Section 37 and permits deduction on voluntary donations, provided the donation is not made

JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2614/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ishraq Contractor

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

Kosh, Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, Swachh Bharat Kosh, Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, Swachh Bharat Kosh, Clean Ganga Fund or other specified funds does not Clean Ganga Fund or other specified funds does not Clean Ganga Fund or other specified funds does not necessarily mean t necessarily

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

that there is no statutory bar under section 80G disqualifying donations made in the course of discharging CSR obligations, except to the extent of specified funds mentioned in section 80G(2)(a). 14. In these circumstances, once the donation is made to eligible institutions, and the requisite statutory conditions under

ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

treating the payment as delayed. The CPC considered this amount as not allowable for deduction as per the provisions relating to employees' contributions to specified funds. During appellate proceedings the appellant argued that the contribution to the Employees' Superannuation Fund was voluntary and not mandatory. It further contended that

AXIS FINANCE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 6(1)2, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2922/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaraxis Finance Limited, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ground Floor Axis House, C-2 बनाम Income Tax– 6(1)(2), Wadia, International Center, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai P.B. Marg Worli, Prabhadevi, –400020, Maharashtra Mumbai–400 025, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack3010F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal,ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 45Section 80G

condition laid down in those section is satisfied. Further, provisions of section 80G of the Act provide for deduction for contribution made to specified funds which is other than CSR under section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The extract of those two exceptions is reproduced below

MAHANSARIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, MUMBAI-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2158/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR

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

exclusion for deduction u/s 80G of the Act for Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, Swachh Bharat Kosh, Clean Ganga Fund or other specified funds does not necessarily mean that all other donations made out of CSR expenditures are entitled for claim u/s. 80G of the Act. These exceptions

M/S. CAST SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2403/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Ramaraju N., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1 Pune was of the view that the employees’ contribution to specified fund will not be allowed as deduction, if there is delay in deposit even by a single day as per the due dates mentioned

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4