THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/216/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01032520201220 March 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in its analysis. The distribution of electricity, even with sophisticated machinery and technical expertise, did not amount to technical services under Section 194J.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that confirmed the deletion of interest levied for non-deduction of TDS. The core issue was whether the electricity distribution services provided by the assessee constituted 'technical services' attracting Section 194J.

What were the issues?

Whether the distribution of electricity by the assessee qualified as 'technical services' for TDS under Section 194J, and consequently, whether interest under Section 201(1A) was leviable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194J,Section 201(1A),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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. 216 OF 2012 BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE

2.

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)

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.260/Bang/2011 DATED 16/03/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM 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 16.10.2012 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

3 of qualified technicians and trained, skilled personnel/manpower does not amount to technical services to attract provisions of Section 194J 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?

2.

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.

3.

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*

More judgments on Section 194J

All 1,434 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194J →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →