Legal Essays and Articles

  • Article Posted By: sakshiadv Posted on : 10/10/2015 12:00:00 AM


    Share this post



                                                                                          **SAKSHI GUPTA



    Recent corporate scandals and the increasingly international context within which modern businesses operate have raised important issues concerning the roles and responsibilities of companies. Pressures on companies to behave ethically have intensified and in consequence, firms face pressure to develop policies, standards and behaviors that demonstrate their sensitivity to stakeholder concerns. In consequence, corporate social responsibility, defined by the European Commission as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” has become a more salient aspect of corporate competitive contexts. The scene of CSR in India changed with the introduction of Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013. The new Companies Act has removed the weakness in the old Companies Act of 1956 in the area of corporate social responsibility activities. But the 2013 Act does not talk about tax treatment of CSR expenses something that falls under the exclusive domain of the Income Tax law. In the present paper the issue relating to the tax treatment of the Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure has been critically analyzed. And thereby it has been found that the Income Tax Act, 1961 also need certain amendments in order to clear the dilemma relating to the tax treatment of the CSR expenses by the corporate houses.





    The concept of corporate social responsibility has grown all over the world. It has emerged as a towering influence in modern corporate day activity. The slogan that business should realize its value through employee boosting, attracting staff, saving the planet etc has gained prominence than never before. The idea of corporate social responsibility is slowly replacing by corporate social compulsion and created shared value.[i]

    CSR is often used interchangeably with various other terms, such as corporate philanthropy, corporate citizenship, business sustainability, business ethics and corporate governance. Although these other terms do not all mean the same thing, there is one underlying thread that connects them all-the understanding that companies have a responsibility not just towards shareholders but also towards other stakeholders, such as ‘customers, employees, executives, non-executive board members, investors, lenders, vendors, suppliers, governments, NGOs, local communities, environmentalists, charities, indigenous people, foundations, religious groups and cultural organizations.’ All of these stakeholders are equally important to a corporation, and it should therefore strive with sincerity to fulfill the varied expectations of each.[ii]

    The Corporate Social Responsibility in India is in a very nascent stage. It is still one of the least understood initiatives in the Indian development sector. A lack of understanding, inadequately trained personnel, non availability of authentic data and specific information on the kinds of Corporate Social Responsibility activities, coverage, policy etc. further adds to the reach and effectiveness of the Corporate Social Responsibility programs. But the situation is now changing. Corporate houses are realizing that what is good for workers- their community, health, and environment is also good for the citizens.[iii] . In India, the Companies Act 1956 does not contain any provision regarding corporate social responsibility. The scene of CSR in India changed with the introduction of Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013. Of late government had a view to make it mandatory for corporate social responsibility activities and to make its funding public.


    The Companies Bill, 2009 and its 2011 counterpart, represents the first major effort at comprehensively overhauling corporate law in India since 1956. The Bill’s ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ dwells on growth and international investment at some length. Its authors seem painfully eager to impress the global business community. At the same time, the Bill proceeds in the wake of Bhopal and Dahbol, as well as more recent Satyam accounting scandal (akin to an Indian version of Enron). The rationale accompanying the Bill displays Parliament’s eagerness to recruit additional foreign investment.[iv]

    Every company having a net worth of Rs. 500 crore or more or a turnover of Rs. 1000 crore or a net profit of Rs. 5 crore, during any financial year, is required to set up a Corporate Social Responsibility Committee. The CSR Committee shall consist of 3 or more directors, of which at least 1 director is an independent director.[v] Such a company is also required to spend on CSR activities, in every financial year, at least 2% of average net profits of the company in the immediately preceding three financial years. If the company fails to spend such amount, the board shall provide reasons for the same in its report attached to the financial statements laid before the general meeting.[vi]

    Introduction of Corporate Social Responsibility clause in the Companies Act, 2013 has made India the first country to mandate Corporate Social Responsibility through a statutory provision.

    The CSR Committee is required to frame and monitor the CSR policy and recommend the amount of expenditure to be incurred.[vii] The CSR policy may include activities for eradication of poverty, promotion of education, contribution to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund or any other fund set up by the government.[viii]



    Corporate Social Responsibility has been incorporated under the new Companies Act, 2013. The Ministry of Finance had been considerate towards the overall social sector development promoting sustainability, and in its interpretation of the newly formed Corporate Social Responsibility provisions.[ix] Finance Act, 2014 has proposed that CSR expenditure shall not be allowed as expenditure under section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961. However, any CSR expenditure which is allowed as deduction under other sections such as section 35, 35AC, 80G etc. is permissible.

    CSR Rules are silent on the tax treatment of ‘contribution’ and ‘spending’ made through CSR fund by the companies. The tax difference between making donations and spending towards activities enumerated under the Schedule may vary vastly.[x]

    The question whether Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure can be claimed as deduction in computing the taxable income of a company has become a point of discussion since the passing of the Companies Act, 2013. The position in this regard has been clarified by adding an Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance (No.2) act, 2014, which reads as under:

    “Explanation 2 – For the removal of doubts, it is herby declared that for the purposes of sub-section (1), any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to Corporate Social Responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assesseee for the purposes of the business or profession.”

    The Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 explains the impact of the legislative change in the Income Tax Act, i.e. Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. It states that:

    “Under the Companies Act, 2013 certain companies (which have net worth of Rs.500 crore or more, or turnover of Rs.1000 crore or more, or a net profit of Rs.5 crore or more during any financial year) are required to spend certain percentage of their profit on activities relating to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, expenditure incurred wholly or exclusively for the purposes of the business is only allowed as a deduction for computing taxable business income. Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure, being an application of income, is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of carrying on the 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. The provisions of section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act provide that deduction for any expenditure, which is not mentioned specifically in section 30 to section 36 of the Income-tax Act, shall be allowed if the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of carrying on business or profession. As the CSR expenditure (being an application of income) is not incurred for the purposes of carrying on business, such expenditures cannot be allowed under the provisions of section 37 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, in order to provide certainty on this issue, said section 37 has been amended to clarify that for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 37 any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and hence shall not be allowed as deduction under said section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Income-tax Act shall be allowed as deduction under those sections subject to fulfillment of conditions, if any, specified therein.”[xi]

    Thus, the above clarification implies that if any capital asset has been acquired for discharge of Corporate Social Responsibility, then the cost of the asset will be deductible, but if any expenditure is incurred in its maintenance by way of repairs or renewal or is hiring a place where the asset is installed by way of rent, then such expenditure would be deductible along with the depreciation on the cost or written down value (WDV) of the asset so acquired.[xii]



    The tax treatment will be different for various types of permissible CSR activities. If the company directly undertakes CSR expenditures, then to spend 2% of CSR the company may have to pay additional 1% as taxes.

    If the company undertakes CSR expenditures through 80G registered NGOs (including its own foundation) then to spend 2% of CSR the company may have to pay additional 0.5% as taxes.[xiii]

    CSR being a statutory requirement should be treated as a valid charitable expenditure; otherwise it would be big disincentive to the Companies. If CSR is not treated as a valid expenditure, then the Companies would be motivated to give funds to only those organizations where they get maximum tax benefit. For instance, Prime Minister Relief Fund, National Defense Fund or organizations notified under Section 35 or 35AC or 80G. Such organizations provide 100% tax benefit. It is to be pointed out that only few organizations such as Prime Minister Relief Fund, National Defense Fund provide 100% benefit under Section 80G however, only 50% benefit is available to the donor in case of other NGOs registered under section 80G.[xiv]

    The Finance Minister, while presenting the Budget for 2015-16 on February 28, 2015 announced some tax incentives to encourage companies to participate in ‘Swachh Bharat Abhiyan’[xv] and ‘Clean Ganga Campaign’[xvi]. It was proposed in the budget that donations(other than CSR contributions under the Companies Act, 2013) to the Swachh Bharat Kosh (by residents and non-residents), Clean Ganga Fund (by residents) and National Fund for control of drug abuse will be 100% deductible under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.[xvii] With this amendment to section 80G of Income tax Act 1961, donation made by donor to the swachh bharat kosh and clean ganga fund will be eligible for 100% deduction from assessment year 2015-2016 onwards. This means donors can claim 100% deduction if they have contributed during the financial year 2014-2015 (from 1 of April 2014 to 31 March 2015). However, any sum spent in pursuance of CSR under Section 135(5) of Companies Act, 2013, will not be eligible for tax deduction under section 80G of Income tax act 1961.[xviii]


    An issue which then requires to be analyzed is, when the Ministry of Corporate Affairs requires for specific tax treatment on CSR spends, there seems to be an underlying assumption or understanding that the present provisions of the Act do not provide for allowability of said CSR expenditure under the Act. However, on proper perusal of the provisions of the Act, one may find that Central Board of Direct Taxes may not be required to notify separate tax treatment for CSR spends, since the present provisions provide for allowability of said spending under various provisions of the Act irrespective of whether the said expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of assessee companies. [xix]
    A following chart explains the specific CSR activities as prescribed under Schedule VII to the 2013 Act and simultaneous provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provide for allowability of expenditure:

    TABLE 1.2.

    S. No.

    Specific CSR Activities referred under Schedule VII to the 2013 Act

    Expenditure allowed under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961


    Activities concerning Basic necessities of Life

    More than prescribed layers of subsidiaries


    - Eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutrition

    Section 35AC read with Rule 11K(i)(f) of Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the 1962 Rules’)


    - Promoting Sanitation and health care and making available safe drinking water

    Section 35AC read with Rule 11k(i)(a),(f),(j) of the 1962 Rules


    Activities concerning Education


    - Promoting Education, including special education and employment enhancing vocational skills especially among children, women and elderly and the differently able

    Section 35AC read with 11K(i)(c),(i),(o),(p),(s) of the 1962 Rules


    - Livelihood enhancement programs

    Section 35AC read with 11K(i)(j),(s) of the 1962 Rules


    Activities addressing inequality and gender discrimination

    - Promoting gender equality

    - Empowering women

    - Setting up of homes and hostels for women and orphans

    - Setting up old age homes, day care centre


     Section 35AC read with Rule 11K(i)(n),(i) of the 1962 Rules


    Activities concerning Care for environment

    - Ensuring environmental sustainability

     and ecological balance

    - Preservation of flora and fauna, animal welfare, agro forestry

    - Conservation of natural resources and maintaining quality of soil, air and water


    Section 35AC read with Rule 11K(i)(d),(h),(l),(q),(r) of the 1962 Rule


    Activities concerning protection of National Heritage, Art and Culture

    - Protection of national heritage, art and culture including restoration of building and sites of historical importance and works of art

    - Setting up public libraries

    - Promotion of traditional arts and handicrafts and its development


    Section 35AC read with Rule 11K (The notification issued under the Act in the past have accepted the said activities for deduction u/s. 35AC [except with no precedent available for protection of national heritage u/s. 35AC, but deduction could be claimed in Section80G(2)(b)]


    Activities concerning benefit to Armed Forces, veterans, war widows and their dependants

    - Measures for the benefit of armed forces, veterans, war widows and their dependents


    Section 80G(2)(a)(i) and 80G(2)(a)(iii)(h)(c)


    Activities concerning Sports

    - Training to promote rural sports, nationally recognized sports, Paralympics sports and Olympic sports



    Section 35AC read with Rule 11K(i)(g)


    Activities concerning national relief and welfare of Economically backward class of Society

    - Contribution to PM National relief fund or any other fund


    Section 80G(2)(a)(iiia)


    - Relief and welfare of the Schedules Casts, Schedules Tribes,\ Other backward castes, minorities and women

    Section 35AC read with Rule 11K(i)(b),(c) and Rule 11K(ii) of the Income-tax Rules


    Activities concerning Technology incubators

    - Contributions or funds provided to technology incubators located within academic institutions which are approved by Central Government

    Section 35(2AA) and Section 80G(2)(iiihi) [considering limited information available and provided on the subject, it will have to be determined as to whether the aforesaid section shall be able to provide deduction to the activities concerned]


    Activities concerning Rural Development

    - Rural Development Projects

     Section 35AC and Section 35CCA [with limited information available and provided on the term referred to as ‘rural development projects’ therefore, either of the provisions may be considered for allowability of expenditure]


    *Source:  Allowability of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Expenditure under the Income Tax Act ( )






    Prior to the enactment of Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013, there were instances when the courts came across with the question of whether corporate social responsibility expenditure would qualify as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Though the decisions were given under different factual situations but still a common conclusion was drawn, i.e. corporate social expenditure is qualified as expenditure ‘wholly and exclusively lay out for the purpose of business or profession’ and as such could be allowed under business expenditure.[xx] 


    Sri Venkata Satyanaryana Rice Mill Contractors Co. vs. Commissioner of Income tax[xxi] - The assessee was in the business of rice export from Andhra Pradesh. Before exporting rice a permit had to be obtained from the District Collector, which were granted only after payment was made to a welfare fund established by the District Collector. The assessee claimed the contributions made to the welfare fund as business expenditure. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the deduction by holding that the said payment was neither mandatory nor statutory but was only discretionary and further that the welfare fund had not been approved for the purposes of S. 80G. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that though there was no compulsion on the part of assessee to make contribution to welfare fund the scheme showed that an advantage would accrue for the benefit of the assessee on the payment of the contribution and, therefore, the same was allowable as deduction. The Andhra Pradesh HC disallowed this deduction by adjudging this expenditure as a compulsory extraction and therefore contrary to public policy.

    On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the HC and held this to be business expenditure. According to the Supreme Court, the correct test for determining the nature of business expenditure was not whether it was compulsory for the assessee to make the payment or not but commercial expediency. The Supreme Court reaffirmed a decision of House of Lords[xxii] in which it was held:

    “A sum of money expended, not of necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit to the trade, but voluntarily and on the grounds of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business, may yet be expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of trade…”


    The Supreme Court held that this contribution was in no way contrary to public policy as it was not an illegal payment (bribe or gratification) or penalty for infraction of any legal provision. The welfare fund was established by a voluntary scheme for the general benefit of the members of the public and as such contributions made openly by rice millers cannot be termed as contrary to public policy simply because the payment was a prerequisite to obtaining a permit from the Collector.

    In this judgment, even though the Supreme Court did not expressly talk about CSR expenditure, the ratio impliedly suggests that if a company invests in any public welfare scheme such amount would be allowed as business expenditure under Section 37 (1) of Income Tax Act, even if it were a voluntary investment. If such investment were made mandatory, it would be a measure to facilitate the continuance of business and as such would again qualify as business expenditure.[xxiii]

    Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madras Refineries Ltd.[xxiv]- In this case,the assessee, Madras Refineries Limited was a public limited company. It provided funds for establishing drinking water facilities to the residents in the vicinity of the refinery and also provided aid to the school run for the benefit of the children of those local residents. It incurred an expense of Rs.15,32,000 for that purpose. The Assessing Officer  disallowed this expenditure under section 37 (1), but the Commissioner partly reversed this decision and allowed Rs. 5,00,000 as business expenditure stating that the amount was incurred by the company for the good and welfare of the community and therefore could be regarded as an activity for the promotion of the business. On second appeal, ITAT amended the order of the Commissioner and allowed the entire amount under this section. The Madras HC upheld the decision of the ITAT in its entirety. Addressing the issue of CSR, the HC opined:

    “The concept of business is not static. It has evolved over a period of time to include within its fold the concrete expression of care and concern for the society at large and the people of the locality in which the business is located in particular. Being known as a good corporate citizen brings goodwill of the local community, as also with the regulatory agencies and the society at large, thereby creating an atmosphere in which the business can succeed in a greater measure with the aid of such goodwill. Monies spent for bringing drinking water as also for establishing or improving the school meant for the residents of the locality in which the business is situated cannot be regarded as being wholly outside the ambit of the business concerns of the assessee, especially where the undertaking owned by the assessee is one which is to some extent a polluting industry.”


    But in the post amendment era we came across varying judgments of ITAT and high Courts. Some of these judgments are:


    Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Wipro Ltd.[xxv] – In this case the assessee-respondent had made contributions for the upliftment of a backward community in its nearby area. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure citing it as charity and not at all connected with the purpose of the business, and this decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax. On second appeal to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On appeal to the Karnataka High Court, a Division Bench upheld the decision of Assessing Officer. The High Court stated that the contributions made by the assessee were not direct but towards religious functions, charitable institutions, social clubs and certain acts of charity such as donating a borewell to the Municipality, etc. The HC thus decided this expenditure did not satisfy the test of commercial expediency under Section 37(1). Due to assessee’s failure to adduce evidence, the expenditure under these heads cannot be stated to be exclusively for the purposes of business of the assessee and to allow it. The HC did not follow the decision in CIT vs. Madras Refineries Ltd.[xxvi] and relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court[xxvii] and concluded that the application of the test of commercial expediency for determining whether expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the assessee’s business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Department. However the assessment authority is within its right to come to a conclusion either that the alleged payment is not real or it is not incurred by the assessee or in the character of a trader or it is not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee and to disallow it.

    NMDC Ltd. vs. Joint CIT[xxviii] - In this case a coordinate bench of the Tribunal held donations of Rs. 5 Crores made by the assessee therein to a Medical college, though not related to the business of the assessee, as having been incurred in furtherance of a corporate social responsibility and hence allowable as deduction. In the facts of the present case, the amount spent by the assessee served two objectives. Firstly, it was in discharge of its corporate social responsibility by training rural youth. Secondly, this act was also indirectly promoting the business of bank as these trained rural youth would be prospective clients of the bank.

    Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Anr. vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd.[xxix], has opined that CSR expenditure which facilitates the business of the assessee is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The relevant facts of the said decision are as under: 

    Infosys Technologies Ltd (‘Infosys') has an establishment in Bannerghata Circle in Karnataka, where nearly 500 employees are working. There was severe traffic congestion near the said establishment and therefore, the employees including the general public had to wait for a long time. The said congestion seriously affected the free movement of public including employees of Infosys. Infosys as a Corporate Social Responsibility initiative installed traffic signal near the establishment which otherwise was responsibility of the State. A question arose as regard to allowability of said expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. The High Court held that the said CSR expenditure incurred by Infosys could be said to be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the business under Section 37(1) of the Act and therefore, is allowable, for want of following reasons:

    • The said expenditure facilitates the employees of Infosys for free movement and allows them to reach the office in time, which otherwise was affecting the business of Infosys on account of delay in reaching office and thereby resulting in delay in completing projects; and

    • The Court further noted that just because the general public other than Infosys was also benefited by the said expenditure shall not come in way of deduction of said expenditure u/s. 37(1). 

    In view of the above decision, one may find that the if the CSR activity is undertaken in advancement of business of the assessee, then the said expenditure could be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. 

    Thus, form the above judgments it becomes clear that Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure can be allowed as business expenditure in two situations – firstly, when it is indirectly resulting in the promotion and continuance of business of the assessee; and secondly, even when it is not related to the purpose of the business but is in furtherance of corporate social responsibility activities, as now the CSR activities are a statutory obligation to conduct a profitable business in the long run. However, due to the current amendment, now the application of this ratio would not be possible.[xxx]




    Various forums and corporates, in India, in their recommendations to the Budget, had requested the government to allow tax benefits on their mandatory CSR spend. But the said expectations of the corporate have not been accepted and no specific provisions for allowing deductibility of CSR expenditure from the taxable income has been introduced in the latest Finance Bill. For corporates, allocating 2 per cent of net profits towards mandatory CSR expenditure is in itself is a big task and they will ponder before making additional contribution to 'Swachh Bharat Kosh' and 'Clean Ganga Fund', under section 80G over and above the mandatory CSR expenditure, to claim tax benefit. However, the donations to these funds can be opted for by individuals and companies that are not covered within the ambit of mandatory CSR spend.[xxxi]

    The differential tax treatment of the legally permissible Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure will defeat the very purpose of enacting various priority activities. One of the questions being raised is: Why should a company incur CSR expenditure on priority areas without having any tax benefit, when it can incur the same with 100% tax deductions, through just contributions to general purpose funds set up by the state?[xxxii]

    Thus, from the above facts it is evident that the current Finance act is a mixed bag for the companies in terms of CSR expenditure. Suitable amendments to the Income tax Act are necessary to ensure allowance for deduction of CSR expenditure to avoid needless litigation.



    [i] Dean Roy Nash, “CSR an Indian Perspective: A Review”, (March 9, 2012) at 3; Available at (Accessed on April 28, 2015)

    [ii]  Aayush Kumar, “Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility: An Expansive Vision?”, 1(3) Company Law Journal (March 2013) at 113

    [iii] Shailesh Tiwari and Saumya Goel, “Current Trends Across the Globe with Special Reference to India”, 270(2) Madras Law Journal at 11 (October 11, 2012)

    [iv] Aayush Kumar, “Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility: An Expansive Vision?” 1(3) Company Law Journal (March 2013) at 115.

    [v] Section 135(1) of The Companies Act, 2013

    [vi] Section 135(5) of The Companies Act, 2013

    [vii]  Section 135(3) of The Companies Act, 2013

    [viii] Schedule VII of The Companies Act, 2013.

    [ix] Sanchit Srivastava, “Impact of Finance Act, 2014- CSR”, ACADEMIKE Lawctopus Law Journal + Knowledge Center; Available at (Accessed on April 2, 2015)

    [x] Nishith Desai Associates, “New Rules for Corporate Social Responsibility Announced”, at 4 ( March 12, 2015); Available at (accessed on April 5, 2015)

    [xi] Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 ─ Explanatory Notes to the Provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014; Available at (Accessed on April 2, 2015)

    [xii] T.N. Pandey, “CSR Expenditure of Companies is Not Deductible in Computing Income Taxable Under the Income Tax Act”, 3(9) Company Law Journal (September 2014) at 132.

    [xiii] Dr. Manoj Fogla, “Income Tax Setback on CSR Expenditure-Impact of Budget 2014”, 1(4) CSR Made Easy (2014-15) at 1

    [xiv] Ibid. at 3

    [xv] 'Swachh Bharat Kosh' has been set up to attract CSR funds from the corporate Sector and contributions from individuals and philanthropists to achieve the objective of clean India by the year 2019.

    [xvi] The 'Clean Ganga Fund' is aimed at pooling money for taking up works to rejuvenate the Ganga.

    [xvii] Sameer Gogia, Ekta Chopra,, “Opinion: Corporate Social Responsibility-Benefit or Burden”; Available at (Accessed on April 2, 2015)

    [xviii] “80G Deduction for Contribution To Clean Ganga Fund, Swachh Bharat Kosh And National Fund For Control Of Drug Abuse” Available at (Accessed on April 2, 2015).

    [xix] Ankit Virendra & Sudha Shah, “Allowability of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Expenditure under the Income Tax Act”, Available at (Accessed on April 16, 2015)

    [xx] Supra note 9

    [xxi] [1997] 223 ITR 101 (SC)

    [xxii] Atherton vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd., (1925) 10 TC 155, 191 (HL)

    [xxiii]FCRA: CSR by foreign companies”; Available at (Accessed on April 15, 2015)

    [xxiv] [2004] 266 ITR 170 (Madras High Court)

    [xxv] (2013) 355 ITR 284 (Karn.) (HC)

    [xxvi] Supra note 24

    [xxvii] CIT vs. Walchand & Co. (P). Ltd., (1967) 65 ITR 381; Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC); J.K. Woollen Mfrs. vs. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC)

    [xxviii] 2014 (9) TMI 629 (decided on February 28, 2014)

    [xxix] (2014)(360 ITR 714)

    [xxx] Supra note 9

    [xxxi] Supra note 17.

    [xxxii] Rajiv Chugh, “Column: Need to Revisit tax Norms for CSR Spends”, The Financial Express, February 24, 2015, Available at (Accessed on April 2, 2015)

Back to List