Corporate Social Responsibility Spend Is Eligible For Section 80G Deductions And Working Capital Adjustments Preclude Separate Interest Imputations On Outstanding Receivables
Issue
-
Whether Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure, which is statutorily disallowed as a business expense under Section 37(1), can be claimed as a deduction under Section 80G if the donation is made to a registered, approved charitable trust.
-
Whether an enhanced deduction under Section 80-IA for profits derived from the sale of power to captive units can be sustained without factual verification of additional evidence by the Assessing Officer in light of Supreme Court precedents.
-
Whether the Assessing Officer is bound to recompute the total income of an assessee when the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) issues a subsequent order reducing the transfer pricing adjustment to give effect to Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions.
-
Whether a separate transfer pricing adjustment by way of imputed interest on delayed outstanding receivables from Associated Enterprises (AEs) is warranted if a comprehensive working capital adjustment has already been factored into the benchmarking of the international transactions.
Facts
-
Issue I (CSR and Section 80G): The assessee, a manufacturing company, incurred CSR expenditure totaling ₹3.55 crores (₹2.80 crores to a foundation and ₹0.75 crores for social work). It suo motu disallowed the entire amount under Section 37(1) but claimed a 50% deduction (₹1.40 crores) under Section 80G for the portion donated to the foundation, which was a registered trust approved under Section 80G. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the claim, arguing CSR is mandatory and not a voluntary donation.
-
Issue II (Section 80-IA Captive Power Profit): The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80-IA concerning profits earned from selling power to its own captive units. The AO denied the deduction. In a previous assessment year, the Tribunal had noted that while an enhanced claim was valid in principle following the Apex Court’s ruling in CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., it required detailed factual verification.
-
Issue III (Revised TP Adjustment Order): The final assessment order was completed incorporating a transfer pricing adjustment pursuant to the DRP’s initial directions. However, the TPO subsequently passed a separate “giving effect” order that officially reduced the quantum of the transfer pricing adjustment.
-
Issue IV (Interest on Receivables vs. Working Capital): The assessee realized business receivables from its AEs beyond the contractually agreed credit period. The TPO treated this delay as a separate international transaction resembling “capital financing” and imputed interest on the outstanding receivables, making a corresponding upward adjustment.
Decision
-
Held, In Favor of Assessee (Issue I): The deduction under Section 80G is fully allowable on donations that form part of a company’s CSR expenditure, provided the recipient institution holds a valid Section 80G registration. Following the coordinates of the Tribunal’s decision in the assessee’s own past case, statutory restrictions under Section 37(1) do not automatically bar a deduction under Chapter VI-A.
-
Held, Matter Remanded (Issue II): The issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to examine the additional evidence, verify the underlying facts, and decide the enhanced claim in strict compliance with the legal principles laid down in Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.
-
Held, In Favor of Assessee (Issue III): The AO is directed to give full effect to the TPO’s revised order. Once a specialized authority like the TPO scales down a transfer pricing adjustment in a “giving effect” order post-DRP directions, the AO must mirror that reduction and recompute the final taxable income accordingly.
-
Held, Matter Remanded (Issue IV): The issue is restored to the file of the AO/TPO to compute and grant a proper working capital adjustment. If the impact of delayed realizations is integrated and ironed out within a working capital adjustment while benchmarking the primary transactions, no separate, standalone interest imputation on outstanding receivables can be sustained.
Key Takeaways
-
Dual Character of CSR Funds: The statutory bar on claiming CSR as a routine business expense under Section 37(1) does not act as a blanket veto against claiming deductions under other independent incentive provisions, such as Section 80G.
-
Primacy of Fact Verification in Incentives: Enhanced profit-linked deductions (like Section 80-IA) based on favorable Supreme Court rulings cannot be granted automatically; they remain contingent upon the absolute verification of quantitative and accounting facts by the field officer.
-
Dynamic Binding Nature of TPO Orders: A final assessment order is not immutable against subsequent downward revisions made by the TPO. The AO must dynamically adjust the final tax demand whenever a revised “giving effect” order reduces a transfer pricing liability.
-
Eradication of Double Adjustments: Imputing interest on outstanding receivables alongside a working capital adjustment amounts to double taxation. A comprehensive working capital adjustment absorbs the economic impact of credit intervals, neutralizing the need for secondary interest imputations on delayed AE invoices.
and M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member
[Assessment Year 2022-23]
| a. | Contribution to Cosmo Foundation | – | Rs. 2,80,00,000 |
| b. | Amount spent towards social work | – | Rs 75,00,000 |
| total | Rs.3,55,00,000 | ||
“7.1 Further, we like to observe that as a matter of fact as per Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘CA 2013), the qualifying Companies as mentioned therein ITA no. 95/Del/2024 are required to spend certain percentage of profits of last three years on activities pertaining to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The expenditure on CSR, could be by way of expenditure on projects directly undertaken by said companies, such as setting up and running schools, social business projects, etc. Such expenditure would include expenditure otherwise falling for consideration under section 37(1) of the Act. On the other hand, companies, instead of undertaking or participating directly in a project, may choose to give donations to institutions that are engaged in undertaking such projects, which is also a recognized way of compliance of CSR obligation.
7.2 The assessing officer and CIT(A) have relied upon General Circular 14/2021 dated 25.08.2021 issued by MCA and “Explanatory Notes to the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014” to hold that donations made as part of CSR expenditure are not allowable as deduction. The foundation of their reasoning being that the donation is voluntary in nature, while CSR expenditures are under statutory obligations.
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 to section 37(1) vide the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 (applicable from the assessment year 2015-16), which provided that any ITA no. 95/Del/2024 expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to CSR referred to in section 135 of the CA 2013, shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by an assessee for the purpose of business or profession and shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the IT Act. The intent of Parliament in bringing the aforesaid provision is given in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 and is reproduced as under ;
“CSR expenditure, being an application of income, is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of carrying on business, As the application of income is not allowed as deduction for the purposes of computing taxable income of a company, amount spent on CSR cannot be allowed as deduction for .computing the taxable income of the company, Moreover, the objective of CSR is to share burden of the Government in providing social services by companies having net worth/turnover/profit above a threshold. If such expenses are allowed as tax deduction, this would result in subsidizing of around one-third of such expenses by the Government by way of tax expenditure.” (emphasis supplied) 7.4 The aforesaid explanatory memorandum categorically expresses the legislative intent and the rationale of disallowance of CSR expenditure referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, that such expenditure is application of income and not incurred for the purposes of business. We are of considered view that this in itself justifies the grant of deduction u/s 80G. As CSR expenditure is application of income of the assessee under the Income Tax Act, that means it continues to form part of the Total income of the assessee. Section 80G(1) of the Act provides that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be ITA no. 95/Del/2024 deducted, in accordance with the provisions of this section, such sum paid by the assessee in the previous year as a donation. Further, section 80G(2) lists down the sums on which deduction shall be allowed to the assessee. Section 80G falls in Chapter VIA, which comes into play only after the gross total income has been computed by applying the computation provisions under various heads of income, including the Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, there is no correlation between suo-moto disallowance in section 37(1) and claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act. 7.5 As with regard to the reasoning that CSR expenditure are not voluntary but mandatory in nature due to penal consequences, we are of considered view that voluntary nature of donation is by nature of fact that it is not on the basis of any reciprocal promise of donee. The CSR expenditures are also without any reciprocal commitment from beneficiary being philanthropic in nature. The Act permits deduction of donations as per Section 80G of the Act, even though, assessee is not gaining any benefit out of any reciprocity from donee. Similar is the case of CSR expenditure. Thus the reasoning of learned Tax Authority, the CSR expenditure is mandatory, does not justify disallowance of these expenditures u/s 80G, if other conditions of section 80G are fulfilled. There is no allegation of Revenue that other conditions of Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground.”