SATISH CHANDRA,J. - (1.) ALL the appeals have been filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the judgments and orders dated 12.07.2005 and 13.07.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow. The details of the Income Tax Appeals are as under:- Appeal No. Assessment Year Judgment and Order dated ITA No. 160/Luc/2000 and CO No. 34/Luc/2005 and ITA No. 201/Luc/2002 1997-98 12/07/05 ITA No. 564/Alld/2000 and CO No. 08/Luc/2004 1995-96 12/07/05 ITA No. 100/Luc/2000 and CO No. 102/Luc/2004 1996-97 12/07/05 ITA No. 161/Luc/2000 and CO No. 35/Luc/2005 and ITA No. 202/Luc/2002 1998-99 12/07/05 ITA No.733/Alld/2000 1996-97 13/07/05 ITA No. 419/Luc/2000 and CO No. 49/Luc/2005 1997-98 13/07/05
(2.) ON 06.02.2006, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the Appeal Nos.59, 57 and 58 of 2006, on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.36,57,27,195/- made on account of disallowance of interest accrued on money borrowed from M/s. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., a company of Sahara Group which was invested by the respondent in purchase of shares of different companies of the same group without any intention of earning any income from such investments. 2.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the aforesaid addition, ignoring the fact that the dominant purpose for which investment was made by the respondent in the share capital of the companies of the Sahara Group was not to earn any income and as such the expenditure incurred in this behalf by way of interest on borrowings fell outside the purview of Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in confirming the deletion of the addition on account of perquisite value of various items, without appreciating that the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act were applicable in the case of the respondent as he was provided with rent free accommodation, domestic servants, telephone, car with driver, free electricity, water, gas and reimbursement of club expenses from the various companies and firms in which he as a director/partner and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on this account were fully supported by the ratio of the decisions reported in 181 ITR 303 (MP) and CIT vs. R.L. Kasliwal, reported in 207 ITR 208 (Raj.). 4. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that there was no outgo of funds from M/s Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. (SISICOL) to the firm M/s Sahara India and therefore the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not attracted, without appreciating that the transactions between M/s Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. (SISICOL) and M/s Sahara India (Firm) were not at arm's length and the amount retained by the firm out of deposits collected which in fact belonged to the company was in the nature of loan/advance given by the company to the firm within the meaning of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act." On 06.02.2006, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the Appeal No.60 of 2006, on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in confirming the deletion of the addition on account of perquisite value of various items, without appreciating that the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act were applicable in the case of the respondent as he was provided with rent free accommodation, domestic servants, telephone, car with driver, free electricity, water, gas and reimbursement of club expenses from the various companies and firms in which he as a director/partner and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on this account were fully supported by the ratio of the decisions reported in 181 ITR 303 (MP) and CIT vs. R.L. Kasliwal, reported in 207 ITR 208 (Raj.). 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in confirming the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of clubbing of income of the spouse of the respondent from the firm in which the respondent had a substantial interest, without appreciating that the spouse of the respondent did not possess any technical or professional qualification as envisaged in Section 64(1)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, the income of the spouse from the said firm was rightly clubbed in the hands of the respondent by the Assessing Officer. 3.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that there was no outgo of funds from M/s Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. (SISICOL) to the firm M/s Sahara India and therefore the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not attracted, without appreciating that the transactions between M/s Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. (SISICOL) and M/s Sahara India (Firm) were not at arm's length and the amount retained by the firm out of deposits collected which in fact belonged to the company was in the nature of loan/advance given by the company to the firm within the meaning of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not attracted in this case without appreciating that this was a fit case where the veil of corporate identity had to be lifted for the purpose of understanding the real nature of the transactions and to show that the apparent was not real.
(3.) ON 06.02.2006, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the Appeal No.61 of 2006 on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in deleting the addition on account of perquisite value of various items, without appreciating that the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act were applicable in the case of the respondent, as he was provided with rent free accommodation, domestic servants, telephone, car with driver, furniture and fixtures, free electricity, etc. from the various companies and firms in which he was a director/partner and the additions made by the Assessing Officer on this account were fully supported by the ratio of the decisions reported in 181 ITR 303 (MP) and CIT vs. R.L. Kasliwal, reported in 207 ITR 208 (Raj.)" ;