INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

section 147 of the Act without\nappreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in\nderivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee.\n\n3.\nIt is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has\ninadvertently filed two appeals for the same Assessment Year, i.e.,\n2016

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the\ntwo Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

section 147 of the Act without\nappreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in\nderivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee.\n\n3.\nIt is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has\ninadvertently filed two appeals for the same Assessment Year, i.e.,\n2016

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

145. 6. In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. T reassessment proceedings. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on he relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

145. 6. In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. T reassessment proceedings. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on he relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced

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) of the Act and no notice for reassessment can be issued u/s 148. Now on the facts of the present case, it is seen that the evidences found during the course of search and seizure operation in the case of the assessee and M/s Evergreen 23 I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 Mr. Nilesh Bharani Enterprises, wherein assessee was a partner that

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)

145(3) of the Act and held the financial statements to be unreliable. On these given facts, we find merit in the Ld. CIT(A)’s finding that, when there was no outstanding balance in the name of these three brokers during the year, the disallowance of notional interest in relation thereto, was ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023

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)

145(3) of the Act and held the financial statements to be unreliable. On these given facts, we find merit in the Ld. CIT(A)’s finding that, when there was no outstanding balance in the name of these three brokers during the year, the disallowance of notional interest in relation thereto, was ITA. No.320/Mum/2023 & CO No. 51/Mum/2023

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings\nunder section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the information\nreceived during the course of the search on another entity, therefore the AO\nwas duty bound to initiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Act\ninstead of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, in view of the non-\nobstante clause

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to 11 Patanjali Foods Ltd, Mumbai. 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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to 11 Patanjali Foods Ltd, Mumbai. 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

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

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings pertain toa post- search scenario falling under Explanation 2 to Section 148, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's findings reinforce the departments position that the assessee's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Supra Note13 is misplaced, and theground raised intheappeal is legally unsustainable. Therefore, given the evolving judicial landscape and the divergence in High Court rulings

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings\nunder section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the information\nreceived during the course of the search on another entity, therefore the AO\nwas duty bound to initiate the proceedings under section 153C of the Act\ninstead of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, in view of the non-\nobstante clause

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