Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020 PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NAGA PRASANNA
ITA NO. 201 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS,HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-TDS, WARD-16(1), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND:
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO., LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, IV FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. A/W SRI.M.LAVA ADVOCATE)
2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.530/Bang/2011 DATED 16/03/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-16(1), BANGALORE, ETC.,
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY ALOK ARADE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.9.2012 by framing the following the substantial questions of law: i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the analysis and distribution(SLDC) of electricity by KPTCL from generation point to the customers of the assessee involving utilization of sophisticated machineries, involvement of technical expertise, application of science, services of engineers, engagement of qualified technicians and trained, skilled
3 personnel/manpower does not amount to technical services to attract provisions of Section 194(J) of the Act?
ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the interest levied under Section 201(1A) of the Act, for non-deduction of tax at source as required under Section 194J of the Act?
When the matter was taken up today, learned Senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid substantial question of law involved in this appeal have already been answered in favour of the assessee by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2016 passed in ITA No.438/2012 and other connected matters. The aforesaid contention made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue.
For the reasons aforesaid judgments, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are
4 answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*