The initial question could be understood in at least two different ways:
“Will inductor X physically tolerate a single sinusoidal current pulse of 100A peak amplitude and 300us duration?”
“Will inductor X physically tolerate such a pulse AND behave like an inductor in the process?”
The answer in case # 2 is usually quite straightforward; the listed saturation current is the current flow magnitude at which the inductor “stops” behaving like an inductor, reckoned as the point where observed inductance has fallen by some manufacuturer-defined percentage (30% in case of the CBC3225T150MR). That value is given as 730 mA for the part mentioned, so if you want your inductor to behave like an inductor while you’re applying a 100A pulse, that part won’t come anywhere even close to doing so; I’d suggest using 3-6 of P/N 732-5623-ND or similar in series if maintenance of inductive behavior is desired.
Case # 1 is a different; if you don’t care about the inductor behaving like an inductor and just want to gauge the probability that your current pulse will convert part X into to a cloud of expanding gasses and shrapnel, that’s not readily answered conclusively from the datasheet info. One could guesstimate things by finding the energy content in the pulse (I^2*R), assuming the device is a solid block of some material, and calculating the resulting temperature rise of that chunk of material when the calculated amount of energy is dumped in. I get a figure of around 5°C assuming a solid copper mass of equivalent size to the CBC3225T150MR.
Problem is, that inductor isn’t solid copper; the conductors that are carrying the current within the part are actually rather thin and a fraction of the part’s mass, so if the energy in an applied pulse would be sufficient to raise the temperature of an equivalent-size chunk of copper by 5°C in a third of a millisecond, chances are pretty good that the internal conductors in the part number mentioned would end up getting a -lot- warmer than suggested by the above guesstimation.