APRAAVA WIND ENERGY (KHANDKE) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, MUMBAI

ITA 3757/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Private Limited against the revisionary order of the PCIT, Mumbai-4, which challenged the deduction claimed under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for donations made under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses. The PCIT had set aside the original assessment order, which allowed the deduction, citing it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal examined whether the PCIT was justified in invoking section 263 of the Act and found that the original assessment had adequately addressed the eligibility of the deduction under section 80G, despite the donations being part of CSR expenditures.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847872 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Worley Services India Pvt Ltd v PCIT, Mahansaria Enterprises (P) Ltd v PCIT, Naik Seafood Pvt Ltd v PCIT, Baiai Electrical Ltd. V. PCIT, Dalai & Broacha Stock Broking (P) Ltd vs. PCIT, DCIT v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd, DCIT v. Gabriel Ltd, MOIL V CIT, CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, CIT v. Nirav Modi, Axis Securities Ltd v. PCIT, Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Ltd v ACIT, Blue Dart Express Ltd. v ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: DHRUNAL BHATT; APPEARED VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Business expenditure; Charitable institution; Revision of order; Prejudicial to interest
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263; 37; 28; 37(1); 80G

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3757/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Private Limited 7th Floor, Fulcrum, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400099 PAN: AABCE4934F vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-4 Room No.629, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent Present for: Appellant by : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, CA (appeared virtually) Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 17.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the revisionary order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – PCIT, Mumbai-4 vide order nos. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2024-25/1074954049(1) dated 24.03.2025 against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 23.09.2022 for A.Y. 2020-2021. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 2 “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, conditions to invoke provisions u/s 263 are absent in the case of appellant thereby making the order u/s 263 bad in law. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Id. PCIT has erred in holding that assessment order passed by AO after allowing deduction u/s 80G on CSR expenses is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Learned PCIT has erred in setting aside the Assessment order dated 23.09.2022 to the file of the AO to enquire the claim of Section 80G deduction out of CSR expenses and modify the assessment order. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Id. PCIT has erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act on CSR expenditure incurred by it.” 2.1. Aforesaid grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal relate to revisionary proceeding initiated u/s.263 and revisionary order passed thereunder. The issue raised in the revisionary proceedings relate to denial of deduction under Chapter-VIA u/s.80G made out of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 22.12.2020, reporting total income at Rs.3,02,65,360/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit at Rs.36,67,26,775/- u/s 115JB. Assessee is engaged in the business of generation of electricity through wind turbines in the state of Maharashtra. It supplies its output to Maharashtra State Electricity Development Company Limited. In the year under consideration, assessee earned income from wind turbines and from other sources which includes interest income. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B, accepting the above noted returned income as well as book profit. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 80G towards donation made to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 3 Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR) eligible for deduction u/s 80G for 50% subject to qualifying limit. The eligible amount for deduction was worked out at Rs.15,92,913/-. 3.1. Assessee furnished all the details and explanations in respect of the donation so claimed including the contribution towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses. Assessee in its computation of total income had suo moto disallowed and added back the expenditure made towards CSR. It claimed deduction u/s.80G for an amount of Rs.15,92,913/- which was allowed by the ld. AO while completing the original assessment. 4. As mentioned in para 2 of the impugned revisionary order, ld. PCIT from the perusal of the records noted that there were objections raised by the Revenue audit party based on which he took up the matter for revision on the above stated issue by issuance of show-cause notice dated 24.02.2025 u/s.263. Before the ld. PCIT, assessee reiterated its submissions which were made in the original assessment proceedings, corroborated by documentary evidences. It also submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches in plethora of cases. Ld. PCIT took note of the submissions made by the assessee in para 3 of the impugned order. However, concluded to set aside the assessment order to enquire the claim of section 80G deduction out of CSR expenses and modify the assessment as per finding in his order. 5. In the present case before us, the undisputed fact as noted by ld. PCIT while drawing his consideration for invoking the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act is that assessee itself had added back in the computation of total income, the amount of CSR expenses debited by it in its profit and loss account. Assessee had made detailed Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 4 submissions in respect of its eligibility of claim made u/s 80G to point out that there is no embargo on making such claim as contained in section 80G though it is not permissible u/s 37(1) for which assessee had suo moto made the disallowance while computing its total income reported in the return of income. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before us. The issue before us is no longer res integra in view of long line of decisions of co-ordinate benches, whereby it has been allowed in favour of the assessee. Some of the judicial precedents are listed below: Sr. No. Case Law ITA No. 1. Worley Services India Pvt Ltd v PCIT ITA 554/Mum/2024 2. Mahansaria Enterprises (P) Ltd v PCIT 175 Taxmann.com 885 3. Naik Seafood Pvt Ltd v PCIT ITA 490/Mum/2021 4. Baiai Electrical Ltd. V. PCIT ITA 1302/Mum/2021 5. Dalai & Broacha Stock Broking (P) Ltd vs. PCIT 175 Taxmann.com 984 6. DCIT v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd 1 75 Taxmann.com 411 7. DCIT v. Gabriel Ltd 173 Taxmann.com 21 9 8. MOIL V CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bombay) 9. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) 10. CIT v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay) 11. CIT v. Nirav Modi 77 Taxmann.com 15 (SC) 12. Axis Securities Ltd v. PCIT 175 Taxmann.com 982 13. Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Ltd v ACIT ITA 494/Mum/2025 14. Blue Dart Express Ltd. 1101/Mum/2024 6.1 We refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs. Blue Dart Express Ltd. in ITA No. 1101/Mum/2024, where it observed as under: “9. We have heard both the parties and also perused the relevant material referred to before us. First of all from the perusal of the re-assessment order which is the subject matter of revision u/s.263 by the ld. PCIT, we find that this was one of the ground for reopening and ld. AO has raised specific query as noted above on exactly same issue. The assessee has given its detailed reply and after examining those replies, the ld. AO has allowed the deduction Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 5 u/s.80G holding that assessee has already disallowed CSR expenses u/s.37(1), and there is no bar for claiming deduction u/s.80G unless the same is not in accordance with the provision of the Section 80G and there is no issue of mutual exclusiveness of the claim found in this regard. Ld. PCIT has not brought on record any law or judicial precedence that such an observation and finding of the ld. AO is incorrect in law. Once the ld. AO has taken a possible view and there is no contrary law, then to take a different view in a revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263, cannot be held that the order of the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. There is no case of invoking Explanation 2 to Section 263 which ld. PCIT has done, because ld. AO has made his enquiry and verification on the same issue. Ld. PCIT cannot cancel the assessment order to re-examine the same issue without finding any defect in such order that how the claim made u/s.80G is unsustainable in law. 10. On merits also, we find that view of ld. AO is correct in law. Claiming a deduction from computation of business income as provided from sections 28 to 44DB is different from claiming a deduction under chapter VIA of the Act which is allowed from Total Income. As per Explanation 2 to Section 37, CSR expenditure is not allowable as deduction while computing the business income under the provision of Section 28-44DB, whereas deduction u/s.80G is allowed while computing the total income under Chapter VIA. There is no pre-condition that claim for deduction u/s.80G on a donation should be voluntary. It is independent of computation of business income as it is allowed from Gross Total Income. The assessee had disallowed the CSR expenses while computing business income. Further, there is no dispute that the assessee has filed complete details of donation and also filed the certificate u/s.80G which was enclosed before the AO. Section 80G (1) of the Act provides that in computing total income of the assessee, they shall be deducted in accordance with the provision of Section, such sum paid by the assessee in the previous year as a donation. Deduction under Chapter VIA provides deduction from the gross total income which is computed after making necessary allowances / disallowances in accordance with Section 28-44BB of the Act including Explanation to Section 37(1). Thus, Section 37(1) and Section 80G of the Act are independent and the principles governing what is not allowable u/s. 37(1) have been provided in the section itself. Even in section 80G also, what is not allowable has also been provided under the Act. For instance, Section 80G specifically mentions two clauses, viz., section 800(2)(a)(iihk) and (iiihl), i.e., contributions towards „Swacha Bharat Kosh‟ and „Clean Ganga Fund‟, where donation in the nature of CSR Expenditure is not allowable as deduction under section 80G of the Act. Therefore, the disallowances for deduction under section 80G vis-à-vis CSR can be restricted to contributions made to these Funds mentioned in Section 800(2)(a)(iiihk) and (iiihl) only. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not claimed any deduction against the aforesaid clauses of 80G (2)(a) of the Act and as such entire donation claimed by the assessee is allowable u/s 80G. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (\"MCA\") has issued \"FAQs\" through General circular no. 01/2016 dated January 12, 2016 (FAQ No. 6) and has clarified on the issue as follows: \"Question No. 6: What tax benefits can be availed under CSR? Answer: No specific tax exemptions have been extended to CSR expenditure per se. The Finance Act, 2014 also clarifies that expenditure on CSR does not form part of business expenditure. While no specific tax exemptions have been extended to expenditure incurred on CSR, spending on several activities like Prime Minister's Relief Fund, scientific research, rural development Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 6 projects, skill development projects, agriculture extension projects etc, which fund place in Schedule VII, already enjoys exemptions under different sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\" 11. This clarification being issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India clarifies that donation covered under CSR Expenses which not are eligible for the deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but are allowed under different sections. Ergo, there is nothing that if any expenditure is disallowable u/s 37 the same cannot be allowed under other provisions of Act, if the conditions of allowability are satisfied. Thus, allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80G by the ld. AO cannot be held to be unsustainable in law or amounts to erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus order of the Ld. PCIT is reversed on this point. 12. Thus, we hold that ld. PCIT is not correct in law in cancelling the assessment order by the ld. AO on this issue. Accordingly, the order of the ld. PCIT is quashed. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6.2. Also, in the case of ACIT vs. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd. in ITA No. 3755/Mum/2023, on similar issue, it was held as under:- “The assessee during the year disallowed a sum of Rs.33.85 crores under section 37 towards the CSR Spend in compliance with section 135 of the Companies Act. Since the institutions to which the said amounts are given are registered under section 80G, the assessee claimed 50 per cent i.e. Rs.16.93 crores of the same as deduction. The argument of the revenue is that the payment are made to comply with the mandate under the Companies Act, and therefore it cannot be treated as donations which are \"voluntary\" payments. The further argument of the revenue is that when the statute has denied the direct claim of the CSR spend under section 37, the assessee claiming the deduction indirectly under section 80G is against the intention of the legislature and cannot be allowed. The assessee's contention is that there is no restriction under section 80G to the effect that the contribution should be voluntary and that the CSR spend is an application of income which is eligible for deduction from the gross total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 80G.  Now coming to the intention of legislature while amending the provisions of section 37 whereby the CSR spend are not allowed to be claimed as a deduction under the said section. Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 brought in the amendment to section 37 by inserting Explanation 2 to the said section with effect from 1-4-2015  The \"Explanatory Notes to the provisions of Finance (No.2) Act, 2014\" issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its Circular No.01/2015 dated 21- 1-2015 explaining the aforesaid amendment, clarifies that 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 and that 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. However, it is pertinent to note that though, the expenditure Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 7 incurred towards CSRs is not an expenditure incurred for the purpose of business, if the spend is of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 deduction shall be allowed under those sections subject to fulfilment of conditions, specified therein. For example if the contribution is made to a scientific research association, or to a university or to a college or other institution to be used for scientific research etc., which are approved under section 35 as part of CSR spending then deduction can be allowed subject to the fulfilment of conditions prescribed under section 35. This explanatory note though self-contradictory i.e. denying deduction under section 37 but allowing the assessee to claim deduction under sections 30 to 36, also makes it clear that there is no bar regarding the admissibility of CSR expenditure under any other provision of the Act, except under section 37(1). In other words, the intention of the legislature is not to restrict the right of the assessee to claim deduction towards the CSR spend if the payment is otherwise allowable under a specific provision of the Act. Further wherever the intention is to restrict the claim of deduction under any other provisions of the Act the same is explicitly provided for to that effect by the legislature. This view is supported by the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill 2015 which brought in the specific restriction for claiming deduction under section 80G towards the CSR spend towards donation to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. Therefore, the contention that the CSR spend being claimed as a deduction under section 80G is against the intention of the legislature which restricts the same to be claimed as a deduction under section 37 cannot be appreciated.  The next issue is whether the impugned payments are otherwise eligible for deduction under section 80G. It has already been established that the payments made by the assessee are donations and therefore if the other conditions for the deduction under section 80G are fulfilled then there should not be any restriction for the assessee to claim the deduction. Before holding so the contention of the revenue that the payments made towards CSR spend are monitored and controlled by the assessee and are not voluntary is addressed. In this regard it is relevant to note that though there is a statutory obligation of CSR expenditure under section 135 of Companies Act 2013, there are many prescribed modes and activities under Schedule VII of the Companies Act for spending the CSR expenditure, (the list is not exhaustive but inclusive). Further neither section 135 of the Companies Act nor Schedule VII to the Companies Act nor the CSR Rules, mandates donations to the institutes/funds prescribed under section 80G. Therefore, there is merit in the submission of the assessee that though the quantum of CSR spend is mandatory there is no mandate on how amount is to be spent or to whom the contribution is to be made. Accordingly the act of the assessee to choose to Reliance Foundation and Shyam Kothari Foundation which are eligible to accept donations under section 80G is voluntary and is not mandated by section 135 of the Companies Act 2013. Further from the perusal of CSR Rules as applicable in assessee's case, it is noticed that the monitoring of the CSR spend is to ensure that the same is as per the CSR policy of the company and it does not provide for monitoring the utilization of the funds by the third party donees. In any case the donations made for a specific cause does not result in denial of deduction which is otherwise allowable as per the provisions of section 80G. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 8  One more point that needs to be considered while deciding the deduction under section 80G for CSR spend is that the restriction on the allowability of the said spend as provided in Explanation 2 to section 37 is for computing the business income under the provision of section 28-44DB whereas the deduction under section 80G is claimed under Chapter VIA i.e. after computing the Gross Total Income. The provisions of section 80G does not impose any condition that the contribution should be voluntary and therefore when the CSR spend is evaluated independently under the provisions of the Act, it is viewed that there is no restriction for the assessee to claim deduction under section 80G provided the CSR spend meets the conditions specified therein. In other words, the provisions of section 37 is computation provision whereas section 80G is a beneficial provision which allows deduction towards payments made by the assessee for charitable purposes and therefore these two sections are independent of each other. For example, when a company which is not required to comply with the provisions of section 135 of the Companies Act 2013 makes a donation or a company makes donations in excess of 2 per cent even then the payment may get disallowed under section 37 but in that case the revenue would not impose any restriction to evaluate the payment for claiming deduction under section 80G. If the same analogy is applied to the CSR spend it is viewed that the assessee should be able to claim deduction under section 80G if the other conditions are fulfilled. Denying the claim for the reason that there is a specific mention under section 37 for disallowance and that the payments are made in compliance with section 135 of the Companies Act is not legally tenable unless there is an explicit provision for e.g. contributions towards “Swacha Bharat Kosh‟ and “Clean Ganga Fund‟.  In view these discussions and considering the judicial precedence in this regard, it is viewed that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the deduction under section 80G to the assessee towards donations made to Reliance Foundation and Shyam Kothari Foundation. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.” 7. Considering the facts on record where there is no dispute on making of donations by the assessee except that it has been made out of CSR fund, we find that there is no statutory bar in claiming the deduction u/s. 80G. Donations made by the assessee do not fall under specified exception and therefore, assessee is entitled to deduction claimed u/s. 80G. There is no embargo in claiming such expenditure as a deduction under Chapter VI-A, including section 80G, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Contention of the ld. CIT DR that such donations lack voluntariness solely because they form part of CSR obligation is misconceived in law. The choice of recipient of such Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 9 CSR donations is always with the assessee alone. As long as the donations are made to institutions approved under section 80G and all the requisite documentary compliances are in place, the deduction cannot be denied merely because the payment also satisfies the CSR requirement under the Companies Act. 7.1. Ld. CIT DR has contended that action by ld. PCIT is justifiable since ld. AO failed to conduct any inquiry on the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80G for which the donation was made out of CSR fund rendering the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For this, he placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities (P.) Limited vs. PCIT [2025] 177 taxmann.com 149 (Mum). In this regard, contrary to the facts in the case of Nirmal Bang Securities (supra), it was pointed in the present case before us about the specific query raised by the ld. Assessing Officer in the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 03.11.2025 vide point no. 7 and 8 which is extracted below: “7. Furnish complete details of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the I.T. Act and CSR expenses made for the year under consideration. 8. Clarify, why the deduction claimed u/s 80G on account of CSR expenses should not be disallowed.” 7.2. Assessee had furnished a detailed reply on the above queries of the ld. Assessing Officer vide submission dated 10.11.2025 running into 10 pages. Both, the aforesaid notice u/s 142(1) and reply by the assessee are placed on record in the paper book and have been perused. We note that contrary to the above factual position, in para 4.8, ld. PCIT mentions that there are no query regards CSR expenses eligible for section 80G resulting into incorrect assumption of facts. We find that it is not a case where there was no enquiry at all by the ld. AO. Our Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 10 perusal of the afore stated records reveals that ld. AO did enquire very specifically in to the claim of the assessee u/s section 80G on account of CSR expenses. To buttress our finding, we refer the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del) wherein it held dismissing the appeal of the Revenue “that the present case would not be one of, “lack of inquiry” even if the inquiry was termed inadequate. The Tribunal found that complete details were filed before the Assessing Officer and that he applied his mind to the relevant material and fact, although such application of mind is not discernible from the assessment order. The Tribunal held that, the Commissioner in proceedings under Section 263 also had all these details and material available before him, but not been able to point out defects conclusively in the material, for arriving at a conclusion that particular income had escaped assessment on account of non application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal was right and the order of revision was not valid”. 8. Further, details relating to the donee forms part of the return of income which is on record. Ld. PCIT in the revisionary proceedings has not pointed out any discrepancy or deficiency in this factual position. Further, section 263 itself mandates ld. PCIT to either himself make an enquiry or cause an enquiry to be conducted on the issue which in his consideration renders the assessment erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, fact of any such enquiry conducted by ld. PCIT is not discernible from the records. Accordingly, revisionary proceedings invoked by ld. PCIT on the premise that ld. Assessing Officer has allowed claim u/s.80G in respect of CSR expenditure should not have been allowed does not hold its fort to justify the proceedings so initiated. The revisionary order thus passed is vitiated and does not hold good. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3757/Mum/2025 Apraava Wind Energy (Khandke) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2020-21 11 9. In the conspectus of above discussion, we are of the view that the assessment order which is the subject matter of the impugned revisionary proceedings is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We thus, set aside the order of ld. PCIT passed u/s.263. Grounds raised by the assessee in this respect are allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 25 March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (C V Bhadang) (Girish Agrawal) President Accountant Member Dated: 25 March, 2026 Ankit, Sr.P.S Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asst.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "