PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard through VC and in not considering the request to defer the hearing. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in affirming the addition made by the AO under Section 14A without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions regarding the disallowance calculation.
What were the facts?
The assessee company appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer disallowed ₹1,45,94,658 as expenditure incurred to earn exempt income, based on the company's investments.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in denying an opportunity for virtual hearing and in affirming the disallowance under Section 14A without properly considering the assessee's submissions on the calculation methodology.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') for AYs 2018-19 & 2020- 21 dated 05.05.2025 and 23.04.2025, respectively. Since the issues relate to the common assessee, therefore, they are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1044/KOL/2025; AY 2019-20: “1.
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026