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

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

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

80G of the Act would render Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the of the Act would render Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the of the Act would render Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act nugatory and would effectively nullify the specific Act nugatory and would effectively nullify the specific Act nugatory and would

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

Section 263. Ground No. 2: Incorrect disallowance of donation claimed u/s 80G of Ground No. 2: Incorrect disallowance of donation

POLYNOVA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Polynova Industries Limited Dcit 14(1)(1) 159, Cst Road, Kalina, Aayakar Bhavan,4Th Floor, Santacruz East, Vs. Mumbai- 400001 Mumbai- 400098 Pan No. Aabcl 0864 D Appellant Respondent

2 of the said compilation, it was submitted that the assessee had already disallowed the expenditure of ₹5,00,000 incurred on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities while computing its business income and had thereafter claimed 50% of the said amount as a deduction under section 80G

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

disallowance of same u/s. 80G, if other conditions of Section 80G are fulfilled by observing as follows: “7.3 As we take notice of the fact that Parliament legislated that CSR expenses would not be eligible for deduction as business expenditure under section 37 of the Act by inserting Explanation 2

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AVENDUS CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jcit (Osd)-14(1)(1), M/S Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, 901, Platina, 9Th Floor, Plot No. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C59, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aabcc 2404 Q Appellant Respondent

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act on Corporate Social Responsibility under section 80G of the Act on Corporate Social Responsibility under section 80G of the Act on Corporate Social Responsibility ("CSR") expenses. ("CSR") expenses. 10. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating 10. The brief facts of the case pertaining

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LTD., MUMBAI

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

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

80G. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D without appreciating the fact that whether the dividend is earned during the relevant financial year or not, the provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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:

2. The PCIT erred in passing revision order under section 263 of the Act by disallowing deduction under section 80G

AXIS SECURITIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain(Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Am) Axis Securities Limited Pcit-4 Unit 002A & 002B, Agastya Room No. 629 Corporate Park, Pirmal Realty Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kamani Junction, Kurla-W M.K. Road Mumbai-400 070. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aabce6263F Appellant Respondent

disallowances for deduction under section 80G vis-a-vis CSR can be restricted to contributions made to these Funds mentioned in Section 800(2

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowed the deduction of Rs. 11,83,622/- claimed by the assessee\nunder section 80G of the Act.\n13.\nThe learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, allowed the grounds raised\nby the assessee on this issue and directed the AO to delete the addition\nmade on account of the claim under section 80G of the Act, by observing\nas follows

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

disallowance, which does not appear\nto be the legislative intent.\n109. A careful reading of section 80G further shows that the\nlegislature has expressly excluded only certain CSR contributions\nfrom the ambit of deduction. Specifically, section 80G(2

DEUTSCHE INDIA PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS 'DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowed. In response, the assessee submitted that the donation paid by the assessee does not fall within the specific exclusions provided under section 80G of the Act and hence the deduction should be allowed. It was further submitted that the donation amounting to INR 2

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

2 to section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, there is no\ncorrelation between suo-moto disallowance of section 37(1) and claim of\ndeduction under section 80G

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

disallowance of\nsame u/s.80G, if other conditions of section 80G are fulfilled by\nobserving as follows:-\n\"7.3 As we take notice of the fact that Parliament legislated that CSR expenses\nwould not be eligible for deduction as business expenditure under section 37 of\nthe Act by inserting Explanation 2

HERE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23

disallowances for deduction under section 80G vis-à-vis CSR can be restricted to contributions made to these Funds mentioned in Section 800(2

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

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

disallowance, which does not appear to be the legislative intent. 109. A careful reading of section 80G further shows that the legislature has expressly excluded only certain CSR contributions from the ambit of deduction. Specifically, section 80G(2