IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 319& 321/Mum/2023 A.Ys: 2007-08 & 2011-12 Patanjali Food Ltd (Formerly Vs Dy. CIT, CC – 7(2)

Known as Ruchi Soya 655, 6^th Floor, Aayakar Industries Ltd) Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai

616, Tulsiani Chambers, – 400020.

Nariman Point, Mumbai PAN – AAACR2892L (Appellant) (Respondent)

I.T.A. No. 1173 & 1174/Mum/2023 A.Ys: 2007-08, 2011-12 Dy. CIT, CC – 7(2) Vs Patanjali Food Ltd 655, 6^th Floor, Aayakar (Formerly Known as Ruchi Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai – Soya Industries Ltd)

400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai PAN – AAACR2892L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri SS Nagar (virtually appeared) &

Shri B Maheshwari Revenue by Shri RA Dhyani, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08 & 2011-12.

2. Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No. 319/Mum/2023, A.Y 2007-08

3. At the time of hearing Ld.AR stated at Bar that assessee wants to withdraw the present appeal. Therefore, considering the statement of the Ld.AR, the present appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn.

3.1. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

ITA No. 321/Mum/2023, A.Y 2011-12 As per the facts of the present case a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the Ruchi Soya Group of cases on 29.01.2013. Thereby triggering Sec. 153A of the Act and after serving statutory notices and seeking reply of the assessee, assessment proceedings were duly concluded by passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, thereby making additions under different heads. Aggrieved by the assessee order assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the same was partly allowed. Against this order the present appeal has been filed by the assessee on the grounds mentioned herein below:

1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition of tax and interest with reference thereto, the quantification of taxable income and the tax liability, has been grossly unjustified, erroneous and unsustainable and necessary direction be given to the AO to give appropriate relief in accordance with law.

1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,72,92,526/- being expenditure towards employee Stock Options (ESOPs) provided to the employees.

1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified in confirming the disallowance of bad debt amounting to Rs.4,48,07,443/- written off as irrecoverable by the appellant.

4. Ground No. 1.1, this ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,72,92,526/- with regard to Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP’s) provided to the employees.

4.1. In this regard Ld. AR submitted that this ground is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2012-13, wherein similar issue has been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench and decided in favour of assessee. On the other hand Ld. DR relied upon by the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

4.2. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that this ground is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in asses