After financial crisis 1924, the corporate world was forced to restructure their relationship with stakeholders. Stakeholders contested for greater accountability and transparency from corporate management. The Corporate world can’t succeed without taking cognizance of their immediate society. European Commission (2001) defined “CSR as a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on the voluntary basis”. CSR has broadened the domain of corporate sector from stockholders to stakeholder by assigning responsibility towards all those institutions which are affected by the company. Despite a substantial research on CSR, it still lacks conceptual clarity. Different scholars regressed to come up with an inclusive definition, which reflects basic CSR character. We have looked for a definition and basically, there isn’t one (Jackson & Hawker, 2001). The problem exists due to the social construction of definition which fickles across time and space. The comprehensive definition was proposed in 1983, by AB Carroll “corporate social responsibility involves the conduct of a business so that it is economically profitable, law-abiding, ethical and socially supportive” (Carroll, 1983). Thus, CSR is a philosophy which defines the company-stakeholders relationship. The CSR is ever more on the agenda of business organization, due to its ability to enhance the competitiveness of a firm. This has motivated researchers to investigate what affect CSR exerts on bottom-line of the business. In this perspective, prior work has presented divergent results. The dominant perspective believes that CSR provides a competitive edge, which finally enhances the financial strength of the business (Margolis, Elfenbein, & Walsh, 2009). The underlying premise, which asserts that CSR enhances financial performance, is the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). The theory emphasis that the success of a company depends on the enduring relationship with stakeholders and managing them have become an essential tool for value creation (Hammann, Habisch, & Pechlaner, 2009). The other perspective is negative relationship between two constructs. According to this line of thinking, it consumes the scares resources of company without any substantial return (Friedman, 1970). In other words, social action involves a cost which affects profit negatively. For instance, cost incurred in different CSR activities, for instance, charity, ecofriendly equipment, better working conditions, pollution control, will squeeze the profitability. As a blistering topic of debate, CSP – CFP investigated worldwide, but lacks insights from an Indian perspective. Further, developing countries became a great receptive of CSR idea, which have become a hub of CSR, makes it imperative to assess its financial implications. Thus, the motive is to explore the nature and the course of association shared between the CSR and financial performance by Indian commercial banks.