BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

116 results for “capital gains”+ Section 14Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,008Delhi976Kolkata490Chennai489Ahmedabad356Bangalore269Karnataka126Pune116Jaipur85Chandigarh63Agra59Hyderabad58Raipur49Visakhapatnam43Cochin41Cuttack38Indore36Lucknow22Surat18Guwahati17Rajkot16Amritsar12Panaji10Calcutta10Telangana6Ranchi5Orissa5Nagpur4Jabalpur2SC1Punjab & Haryana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 14A150Section 143(3)71Addition to Income68Disallowance57Business Income27Deduction27Section 11525Section 153C25Section 92C(3)24Section 271(1)(c)

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 14A refers to expenditure on rent, taxes, salaries, interest, etc., in respect of which allowances are provided for." This observation clarifies that in case of composite and indivisible business having taxable and non-taxable income, expenditure like rent, taxes, salaries, interest etc are to be apportioned. Rule 8D(2)(iii) stipulates that 0.5% of average investment will be disallowed

Showing 1–20 of 116 · Page 1 of 6

19
Search & Seizure17
Section 80I16

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

14A the Act to the extent of Rs. 20,10,855/-. 10. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The assessee prays leave to add to above grounds to amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

14A the Act to the extent of Rs. 20,10,855/-. 10. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The assessee prays leave to add to above grounds to amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1694/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting the assessee the relief of set off of losses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 989/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting the assessee the relief of set off of losses

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 958/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Abhay A. AvchatFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43(5)Section 73(4)

14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting the assessee the relief of set off of losses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 182/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

Section 144ASection 28

section 28(va) will be taxed as `Business income‘. 26. Now we embark upon the exercise of finding out the part of total sale consideration as relatable to transfer of shares and the part towards negative covenants. In his without prejudice argument, the ld. AR contended that the agreed sale price of each share as per the SSPA was Rs.801.027

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 23/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

Section 144ASection 28

section 28(va) will be taxed as `Business income‘. 26. Now we embark upon the exercise of finding out the part of total sale consideration as relatable to transfer of shares and the part towards negative covenants. In his without prejudice argument, the ld. AR contended that the agreed sale price of each share as per the SSPA was Rs.801.027

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1727/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 14A

14A of the Act and it cannot be considered to be towards acquisition of assets. He therefore held that the transaction has been effected by the assessee to incur artificial loss (where assessee is taxable at 30%) and to book capital gains in the hands of sister concern where it was offered to tax at 10%. He thereafter worked

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 250/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250

capital gains. Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12. 25. Assessee has also raised an additional ground and the same is extracted as under : “Additional Ground of appeal No.2(b) - Alternatively, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have granted relief by reducing the total income assessed by Rs.60,00,000/- being the contingency

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 247/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250

capital gains. Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12. 25. Assessee has also raised an additional ground and the same is extracted as under : “Additional Ground of appeal No.2(b) - Alternatively, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have granted relief by reducing the total income assessed by Rs.60,00,000/- being the contingency

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 248/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250

capital gains. Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12. 25. Assessee has also raised an additional ground and the same is extracted as under : “Additional Ground of appeal No.2(b) - Alternatively, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have granted relief by reducing the total income assessed by Rs.60,00,000/- being the contingency

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 249/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250

capital gains. Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12. 25. Assessee has also raised an additional ground and the same is extracted as under : “Additional Ground of appeal No.2(b) - Alternatively, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have granted relief by reducing the total income assessed by Rs.60,00,000/- being the contingency

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 245/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250

capital gains. Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12. 25. Assessee has also raised an additional ground and the same is extracted as under : “Additional Ground of appeal No.2(b) - Alternatively, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have granted relief by reducing the total income assessed by Rs.60,00,000/- being the contingency

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 549/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1(a) raised

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 550/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1(a) raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 607/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1(a) raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 934/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1(a) raised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2624/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Srivastava
Section 10A

capital loss and for denying the same, in our opinion, is not justified. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow carry forward the difference of amount of Rs.6,17,08,575/- (Rs.10,36,89,685/- - Rs.4,19,81,110/-). Thus, ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 19 ITA Nos.2395 & 2624/PUN/2017

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2395/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Srivastava
Section 10A

capital loss and for denying the same, in our opinion, is not justified. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow carry forward the difference of amount of Rs.6,17,08,575/- (Rs.10,36,89,685/- - Rs.4,19,81,110/-). Thus, ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 19 ITA Nos.2395 & 2624/PUN/2017