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

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

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

5 of the appeal of the revenue related to the corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenses claimed by way of corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenses claimed by way of corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenses claimed by way of deduction under section 80G but disa deduction under section 80G but disallowed

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, ()

disallowed under section 80G of the Act. 18. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) has held that the other contributions made under section 135 (5

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance under section 37, is effectively an act of fiscal camouflage. fiscal camouflage. The CSR policy was never intended The CSR policy was never intended to create parallel channels of to create parallel channels of tax deduction but to make companies partners in nation tax deduction but to make companies partners in nation tax deduction but to make companies partners

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

disallowed under section 80G of the Act. 18. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) has held that the other contributions made under section 135 (5

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

5,94,89,560/- while\ndisallowing Rs. 6,36,64,216/-.\niii. Disallowance under section 14A\nThe assessee made suo motu disallowance under section 14A\namounting to Rs. 10,73,211/- towards expenditure relatable to\exempt income. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the\ncomputation and applied Rule 8D. The disallowance was\ncomputed

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

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

disallowed\nunder section 80G of the Act.\n18. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that\nITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Goldman Sachs Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra) has held that the other contributions made under section\n135 (5

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:

5. We heard the parties and perused the material on records. The assessee during the year disallowed a sum of Rs.33,85,00,000 under section 37 of the Act towards the CSR Spend in compliance with section 135 of the Act. Since the institutions to which the said amounts are given are registered under section 80G

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

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

disallowed\nunder section 80G of the Act.\n18. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that\nITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Goldman Sachs Services\n(P.) Ltd. (supra) has held that the other contributions made under section\n135 (5

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)

5) of the Companies Act. The learned CIT(A) further held that Explanation 2 to section 37(1) makes it clear also characterize such expenditure as application of income. On that basis, the learned CIT(A) concluded that allowing deduction under section 80G would indirectly defeat the legislative intent underlying the statutory disallowance

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

disallowed under section 80G of the Act. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) has held that the other contributions made under section 135 (5

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

5. After giving thoughtful consideration to the material placed on record and the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative, it is evident that the sole controversy centres upon the allowability of deduction under section 80G in respect of donations made out of CSR funds, which the assessee had already disallowed

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

disallowed by the Appellant in the return of income (Refer Computation of Income at Page 2 of the Paper book). 5. In the return of income, the Appellant claimed deduction of Rs. 96,83,474/- under Section 80G

HEMANI INDUSTIRES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2963/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Hemani Industries Limited C-701-703, 7Th Floor, Neelkanth Business Park, R.N Road, Vidyavihar (West) Mumbai-400 086 Pan : Aaach1117Q

5. We heard the parties and perused the material on records. The assessee during the year disallowed a sum of Rs.33,85,00,000 under section 37 of the Act towards the CSR Spend in compliance with section 135 of the Act. Since the institutions to which the said amounts are given are registered under section 80G

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIKKA PORTS AND TERMINAL LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue contending these two issues are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

5. We heard the parties and perused the material on records. The assessee during the year disallowed a sum of Rs.33,85,00,000 under section 37 of the Act towards the CSR Spend in compliance with section 135 of the Act. Since the institutions to which the said amounts are given are registered under section 80G

ACIT-3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SIKKA PORTS AND TERMINALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue contending these two issues are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

5. We heard the parties and perused the material on records. The assessee during the year disallowed a sum of Rs.33,85,00,000 under section 37 of the Act towards the CSR Spend in compliance with section 135 of the Act. Since the institutions to which the said amounts are given are registered under section 80G

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 of the Act on CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised in Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 26. The issue arising in Ground No.3, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962. 27. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

CAPRI GLOBAL ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD. (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH CAPRI GLOBAL HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

80G has been disallowed on the ground that the said amount constituted Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure and, therefore, could not be regarded as a voluntary contribution eligible for deduction. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall first adjudicate the appeal for the assessment year 2017–18 on the issue of disallowance under section 14A, which is common