AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 5119/Mum/2015. By the impugned order, the Appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The year under consideration is A.Y. 2011-12. The ITAT, while dismissing the Appeal of the Revenue, relied upon its own decision in the case of this very Assessee ("the Respondent") for A.Y. 2009-10. We must mention that the Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal passed for A.Y. 2009-10, preferred an Appeal before this Court, being Income Tax Appeal No. 1203 of 2015. This was admitted by order dated 25th July 2018 on the following two questions of law which read thus: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 161,86,77,034/-? (b) Wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t taxable when the same was received without corresponding liability, being recurring and periodical in nature, which is not specifically exempt under the statute? D. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting addition of Rs. 87,15,95,326/- without appreciating the fact that if such interpretation was to be accepted, it will legalize the transfer of funds from one company to another without any consideration and without payment of tax by the recipient, which will be against the scheme laid down by the legislature u/s 2(24) of the I. T. Act, 1961? E. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that receipts of Rs. 87,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised in Income Tax Appeal No. 1203 of 2015. In Income Tax Appeal No. 1203 of 2015, the counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that the issue raised in question E stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [404 ITR 1]. In light of the said concession, this Court, in Income Tax Appeal No. 1203 of 2015, held that the question as framed did not give rise to any substantial question of law and hence was not entertained. In the present case also, we find that since the issue raised in question E is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (supra), the same does not give rise to any substantial quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from some companies of the Reliance group to Smt. K.D. Ambani and Shri Mukesh D. Ambani having shareholding in the ratio of 99% and 1% respectively in the company.? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law., the claimed gifts of Rs. 161.86,77,034 AY 2009-10 Rs.161.87.77.034 AY 2010-11 Rs. 87.15,95,326 AY 2011-12 were actually money received by Smt. K D Ambani and Shri Mukesh D. Ambani and the assessee company was only a vehicle for the same? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd v. Commercial Tax officer, 154 ITR 148 (SC) should not be applied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... routed from one Kardam Commercials Pvt. Ltd. to the Assessee Company only to ensure that the ultimate beneficiaries are the shareholders [i.e. Kokilaben Ambani and Mukesh Ambani] of the Assessee Company. In other words, Mr. Chhotaray submitted that this is a clear case of fraud and evasion of tax, and therefore, this Court ought to frame even these additional questions of law. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aspect of these additional questions. We have also gone through the impugned order passed by the ITAT as well as the CIT (Appeals). From the record, we find that nowhere has it ever been contended by the Revenue that the Assessee Company was really a Shell Company and that the monies sent by the Kardam &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of law based on such facts cannot give rise to a substantial question of law. This is for the simple reason that in this Appeal, new facts would have to be brought on record, and the foundation would have to be laid, before answering the said question. This is wholly impermissible in an Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are clearly of the view that the additional questions of law, as projected by Mr. Prakash Chhotaray, cannot be entertained in this Appeal because the foundational facts for raising those very questions have not been laid before the Tribunal, and the same do not arise from the impugned order passed by the ITAT. Hence, the additional questions of law as projected by the....