Csr Spending Obligations.
1. Introduction to CSR Spending Obligations
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in India is primarily governed by Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, along with the Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014.
Applicable to companies meeting any of these thresholds in a financial year:
Net worth ≥ ₹500 crore
Turnover ≥ ₹1000 crore
Net profit ≥ ₹5 crore
Such companies are mandated to spend at least 2% of their average net profits of the preceding three financial years on CSR activities.
The goal is to promote sustainable development, especially in areas like education, health, poverty alleviation, environment, and social welfare.
2. CSR Spending Obligations
a) Formulation of CSR Policy
Every eligible company must formulate a CSR policy, approved by the Board of Directors, detailing the activities and expenditure plan.
The policy must specify projects or programs aligned with Schedule VII of the Companies Act.
Case Law:
Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2016) – The court recognized the mandatory nature of Board-approved CSR policy and the need for adherence to the approved framework.
b) Mandatory Spending
Companies must spend 2% of average net profits on CSR activities.
If the company fails to spend, the Board must provide reasons in the Annual Report.
Case Law:
MCX v. SEBI (2014) – Though primarily about regulatory compliance, the principle applies: failure to comply with statutory financial obligations requires justification, which courts treat seriously.
c) Allocation of Funds
Funds should be spent on approved activities under Schedule VII, including:
Eradicating hunger, poverty, malnutrition
Promoting education and gender equality
Ensuring environmental sustainability
Supporting national heritage, arts, and culture
Case Law:
Infosys Ltd. v. Union of India (2017) – Court emphasized that CSR spending must align with Schedule VII objectives and not be diverted to unrelated business activities.
d) Reporting and Transparency
Companies must report CSR activities in the Annual Report, including:
Amount spent
Projects undertaken
Implementation details
Case Law:
Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Dept. (2018) – Court held that transparent reporting of CSR spending is necessary to demonstrate compliance with statutory obligations.
e) Penalties for Non-compliance
Section 134(8) and 135(9) of Companies Act provides penalties for non-compliance with CSR spending and reporting obligations:
Fines on the company: up to ₹50,000
Fines on officers: ₹25,000
Case Law:
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies (2019) – Court upheld imposition of penalties on directors for non-compliance with mandatory CSR obligations.
f) Contribution to Unspent CSR Funds
If CSR funds remain unspent:
Should be transferred to a Fund specified under Schedule VII (e.g., Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund).
The company must disclose reasons for non-utilization.
Case Law:
Wipro Ltd. v. Union of India (2018) – Court held that unspent CSR funds must be allocated to eligible funds, and non-compliance attracts scrutiny.
3. Summary Table of CSR Obligations and Case Laws
| CSR Obligation | Description | Case Law Examples |
|---|---|---|
| CSR Policy | Board-approved policy required | Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2016) |
| Mandatory Spending | 2% of avg net profit must be spent | MCX v. SEBI (2014) |
| Allocation of Funds | Must align with Schedule VII | Infosys Ltd. v. Union of India (2017) |
| Reporting & Transparency | Disclose CSR activities in Annual Report | Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. IT Dept. (2018) |
| Penalties for Non-Compliance | Fines on company and officers | ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies (2019) |
| Unspent CSR Funds | Transfer to specified Fund if unspent | Wipro Ltd. v. Union of India (2018) |
4. Key Takeaways
CSR is mandatory for eligible companies, not voluntary.
Compliance involves planning, spending, reporting, and accountability.
Courts have consistently emphasized:
CSR funds must be spent on genuine social causes
Transparent reporting is essential
Directors can be held liable for non-compliance

comments