BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

207 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80G(5)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai207Pune138Delhi122Bangalore82Kolkata63Ahmedabad62Chennai50Jaipur26Hyderabad21Chandigarh19Lucknow16Indore9Rajkot8Ranchi7Cuttack5Surat4Visakhapatnam3Raipur3Nagpur2Amritsar2Telangana2Allahabad1Panaji1Cochin1SC1Jodhpur1Guwahati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 80G204Section 143(3)100Section 26371Deduction60Disallowance55Addition to Income55Section 14A52Section 80I33Section 37(1)26Section 12A

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

VI-A which states that just because CSR donations are A which states that just because CSR donations are A which states that just because CSR donations are mandatory benefit of 80G cannot be claimed. This position is mandatory benefit of 80G cannot be claimed. This position is mandatory benefit of 80G cannot be claimed. This position is also supported

Showing 1–20 of 207 · Page 1 of 11

...
24
Section 153A24
Exemption18

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

ITA 2517/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

5,00,000 Srimad Rajchandra Adhyatmik Srimad Rajchandra Adhyatmik Satsang Sadhna Kendra Satsang Sadhna Kendra SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN SWAMI VIVEKANAND SHIKSHAN AAAAS1296H 10,00,000 10,00,000 SANSTHA Laxmiben Lalji Furia Charitable Laxmiben Lalji Furia Charitable AAATL0063C 2,00,000 2,00,000 Trust Total Donation 24,98,000 24,98,000 Qualifying Amount

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2982/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

5) of Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013) (18 of 2013)." In the following judicial precedents, it was held that 80G deduction is eligible on expenditure which is disallowed as CSR:  The Bangalore Tribunal, in the case of FNF India (P.) Ltd v ACIT (2021) 85 ITR (T) 18 (BANGALORE) (TRIB)) believed that under section 80G of the Income

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 404/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Mehta &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

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 by the Assessing llowed by the Assessing Officer. 10.1 The brief

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

disallowance made by AO. 18 ITA.NO. 943/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., 30. The Appellant submits that as per provisions contained in clause (vi) to sub-section (5) of Section 80G

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

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

ITA 2959/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

5)(vi), assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80G in respect of such contribution - Held, yes - Whether since action of Assessing Officer in allowing claim under section 80G was a plausible view, impugned invocation of revision jurisdiction under section 263 was unjustified-Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour of assessee) Section 37(1), of the Income

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Bhandari &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 80G

section 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business deductions and Chapter VI deductions and Chapter VI-A incentives must be respected, and A incentives must be respected, and their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. Accordingly

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

ITA 6658/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

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

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(1)(i)Section 80G(5)

5) of the Companies Act are also eligible for deduction/s 80G of Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT the Act subject to satisfying the requisite conditions prescribed for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. For this purpose, the issue is remanded to the file of AO to examine the same whether the payments satisfy the claim of donation

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

VI-A and applies at the stage of computing total income, whereas CSR expenditure is first disallowed while computing business income. Therefore, denial of deduction under section 80G would result in double disallowance, which was never intended by the legislature. The assessee further argued that the Assessing Officer had travelled beyond his jurisdiction in examining whether CSR funds could

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

disallowable expenditure, the assessee company claimed the same as a deduction u/s 80G of the Act and the AO in the order dated 22.09.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 1448 of the Act has allowed it. Therefore, the order of the AO, u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 7 144B of the Act dated 22.09.2022 is erroneous

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5285/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 80G

80G out of CSR expenses are in accordance with the decisions of various benches of Tribunal. Thus, the view taken by assessing officer cannot be said to be erroneous. Thus, the pre-requisite twin conditions for exercising jurisdiction under section 263 has not meet out in the present case hence we quash / set aside the order of Pr. CIT dated

SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1258/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 80GSection 80I

disallowed and added back in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. The company can claim deduction for hundred percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund u/s 80G(2)(iiia) read with Section 80G(1)(i) of the Act. The company claim deduction to the extent

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

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

ITA 3766/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

80G. (5) In relation to penalties paid to the stock exchange amounting to ₹64,64,367/-, the learned Principal Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to examine whether such expenditure was hit by Explanation 6 ICICI Securities Limited 1 to section 37(1). According to the learned Principal Commissioner, payments arising out of regulatory defaults or non-compliances

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

ITA 3047/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora & MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 135Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

VI-A of the IT Act. The deduction u/s 80G was disallowed by the AO on the ground that allowability of CSR expenditure u/s 80G is against the amendment to section 37(1) & (2) of the IT Act. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that nothing contained in the provisions of section

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

ITA 3755/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora & MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 135Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

VI-A of the IT Act. The deduction u/s 80G was disallowed by the AO on the ground that allowability of CSR expenditure u/s 80G is against the amendment to section 37(1) & (2) of the IT Act. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that nothing contained in the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 2963/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

VI-Aare barred only for deductions referred to under the heading “C- deductions in respect of certain incomes” other than the provisions of sections 80JAA, which does not include deductions U/s 80G, which are stipulated heading “B” of the said chapter. However the issue qua the justification of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80G on payment of donation

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

ITA 4140/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80G

5. The Assessing Officer further noted: Capri Global Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., “Assessee’s contention that assessee has made strategic investments in subsidiaries companies from which no dividend income was received during the year. Further such investments were not made with the motive of earning tax free income. As no dividend income was received during the year from such investments

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

ITA 4139/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80G

5. The Assessing Officer further noted: Capri Global Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., “Assessee’s contention that assessee has made strategic investments in subsidiaries companies from which no dividend income was received during the year. Further such investments were not made with the motive of earning tax free income. As no dividend income was received during the year from such investments

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

ITA 4138/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80G

5. The Assessing Officer further noted: Capri Global Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., “Assessee’s contention that assessee has made strategic investments in subsidiaries companies from which no dividend income was received during the year. Further such investments were not made with the motive of earning tax free income. As no dividend income was received during the year from such investments

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

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

VI-A of the Act. 7. Where the deduction under section 80G of the Act is also disallowed, since CSR qualifying donations are not 'voluntary contributions', it will be a double jeopardy in the case of assessee. Assessee cannot be denied the benefit of claim under Chapter VIA of the Act, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income