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 manufacuturerdefined 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 36 of P/N 7325623ND 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 equivalentsize 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.