DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under 153, in the case of a person where a search

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under 153, in the case of a person where a search

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the Act shall abate. In the present case before us, however, though the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A would not apply

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the Act shall abate. In the present case before us, however, though the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A would not apply

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. 8.2 Having noticed the above, we may also refer to the second and the third proviso to section 153-A(1). For the sake of convenience, the second and third proviso to section 153A(1) of the said Act which is relevant is reproduced below and reads thus : Provided further that assessment

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. 8.2 Having noticed the above, we may also refer to the second and the third proviso to section 153-A(1). For the sake of convenience, the second and third proviso to section 153A(1) of the said Act which is relevant is reproduced below and reads thus : Provided further that assessment

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st

VIIKING MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (IT) CENTRAL CIR4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blev. Acit – Central Circle-4(4) Viiking Media & Entertainment Pvt Ltd., 604-065, 6Th Floor, Gateway Plaza, Air India Building Hiranandani Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Central Avenue, Powai, Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aaacj9884E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkant Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Ms. Richa Gulati Department Represented By :

1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated u/s 132 or books of account, section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the AO shall – (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain&\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\N\Ni.T.A. No. 319& 321/Mum/2023\Na.Ys: 2007-08 & 2011-12\N\Npatanjali Food Ltd (Formerly Vs\Nknown As Ruchi Soya\Nindustries Ltd)\N616, Tulsiani Chambers,\Nnariman Point, Mumbai\Npan - Aaacr2892L\Ndy. Cit, Cc – 7(2)\N655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar\Nbhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai\N400020.\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\N\Ni.T.A. No. 1173 & 1174/Mum/2023\Na.Ys: 2007-08, 2011-12\Ndy. Cit, Cc – 7(2)\N655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar\Nbhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai\N400020.\N(Appellant)\Nvs\Npatanjali\Nfood\Nltd\N(Formerly Known As Ruchi\Nsoya Industries Ltd)\N616, Tulsiani Chambers,\Nnariman Point, Mumbai\Npan – Aaacr2892L\N(Respondent)\N\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N\Nshri Ss Nagar (Virtually Appeared) &\Nshri B Maheshwari\Nshri Ra Dhyani, Cit Dr\N11.08.2025\N15.09.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.:\Nthe Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee\Nchallenging The Different Impugned Orders Passed Under\Nsection 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), By The\Nnational Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The\N Assessment Year 2007-08 & 2011-12.\N\N2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are\Ncommon & Identical, Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed,\Nheard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\N\Nita No. 319/Mum/2023, A.Y 2007-08\N\N3. At The Time Of Hearing Ld.Ar Stated At Bar That Assessee\Nwants To Withdraw The Present Appeal. Therefore, Considering\Nthe Statement Of The Ld.Ar, The Present Appeal Filed By The\Nassessee Stands Dismissed As Withdrawn.\N\N3.

reassessment, if any, relating\nto any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to\nin sub-section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s.132 of the\nAct shall abate. In the present case before us, however, though the second proviso\nto sub-section (1) of section 153A would not apply

PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain&\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\N\Ni.T.A. No. 319& 321/Mum/2023\Na.Ys: 2007-08 & 2011-12\Npatanjali Food Ltd (Formerly Vs Dy. Cit, Cc – 7(2)\Nknown As Ruchi Soya 655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar\Nindustries Ltd) Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai\N616, Tulsiani Chambers, 400020.\Nnariman Point, Mumbai\Npan - Aaacr2892L\N(Respondent)\N(Appellant)\N\Ni.T.A. No. 1173 & 1174/Mum/2023\Na.Ys: 2007-08, 2011-12\Ndy. Cit, Cc – 7(2) Vs Patanjali Food Ltd\N655, 6Th Floor, Aayakar (Formerly Known As Ruchi\Nbhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai Soya Industries Ltd)\N400020.\N616, Tulsiani Chambers,\N(Appellant) Nariman Point, Mumbai\Npan – Aaacr2892L\N(Respondent)\N\Nassessee By Shri Ss Nagar (Virtually Appeared) &\Nshri B Maheshwari\Nrevenue By Shri Ra Dhyani, Cit Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 11.08.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.:\N\Nthe Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee\Nchallenging The Different Impugned Orders Passed Under\Nsection 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), By The\Nnational Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The\N Assessment Year 2007-08 & 2011-12.\N\N2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are\Ncommon & Identical, Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed,\Nheard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For\N\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\N\Nita No. 319/Mum/2023, A.Y 2007-08\N\N3. At The Time Of Hearing Ld.Ar Stated At Bar That Assessee\Nwants To Withdraw The Present Appeal. Therefore, Considering\Nthe Statement Of The Ld.Ar, The Present Appeal Filed By The\Nassessee Stands Dismissed As Withdrawn.\N\N3.

reassessment, if any, relating\nto any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to\n\nin sub-section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s.132 of the\nAct shall abate. In the present case before us, however, though the second proviso\nto sub-section (1) of section 153A would not apply

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

139(1), which were processed under section\n143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, for all the years under\nconsideration, the assessments were reopened by issuance of\nnotices dated 31.03.2021, under section 148 of the Act. The\nreassessment proceedings culminated in orders passed under\nsection 143(3) read with section 147 and section 144B of the Act\nby the National Faceless

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

139(1).The Ld. AR acknowledged the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT-1, (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), dated 12.10.2022, which conclusively held that employee contributions deposited beyond the statutory due date are not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va), even if paid before the return-filing

DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

139(1).The Ld. AR acknowledged the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT-1, (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), dated 12.10.2022, which conclusively held that employee contributions deposited beyond the statutory due date are not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va), even if paid before the return-filing

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

reassessment, if any,\nrelating to any assessment year falling within the period of\nsix assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) is\npending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the\nAct shall abate. In the present case before us, however,\nthough the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section\n153A would not apply

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are\npartly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

reassessment, if any,\nrelating to any assessment year falling within the period of\nsix assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) is\npending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the\nAct shall abate. In the present case before us, however,\nthough the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section\n153A would not apply

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHERYL ADVISORY PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

1)]"[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied tha Officer is satisfied that,— a. any money, bullion, jewellery or other

M/S MUMBADEVI VEYHICLES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Mumbadevi Ito Ward 41(4)(2), Veyhicles Room No. 854B, 8Th Shop No. 18, Suyash Vs. Floor, Kautilya Shopping Centre, Nnp, A. Bhavan, Bkc, K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Bandra (East), (E), Mumbai-400 065 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaofm0851F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026

reassessment, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income / furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Separate penalty proceedings under section 271F were also initiated for failure to file return under section 139

D.Y.PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained