THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA

ITA NO.99/2013

BETWEEN:

The Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, JSS Towers, BSK III Stage, Bangalore.

The Income-Tax Officer, (TDS) LTU, JSS Towers, BSK II Stage, Bangalore.

…APPELLANTS

(By Sri. K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel)

AND:

M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission

Corporation Ltd.,

Major Works Division,

Bangalore Road,

Kolar.

…RESPONDENT

This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order dated 19.10.2012, passed in

2 I.T.A. No.160/Bang/2012, for the assessment year 2009- 2010 and etc.

This ITA coming on for Admission this day, Shylendra Kumar. J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] against the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the respondent – assessee’s appeal and extending the relief to the assessee.

Sri. K V Aravind, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants – revenue submits that the question as to whether the contract awarded by the assessee to third party for erection, installation and execution of civil work of power lines and power stations was not composite contract and no TDS was liable to be deducted in respect of payments made by the assessee to the contractors for purchase of materials involved in the said contract etc., is a question which has been answered in favour of the respondent – assessee as per the Judgment dated 15.03.2012 rendered by another division Bench of this court in ITA No.337/2011 in the case of ‘COMMISSIONER

3 OF INCOME TAX v. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED’ and therefore this question having been answered and gone against the appellant – revenue, so far as this court is concerned, this appeal will have to be dismissed as question is now covered as indicated earlier.

However, Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue submits that this is without prejudice to the stand taken by the revenue that the view taken by this court in the earlier case referred to above is not correct and without prejudice to pursuing the matter before the Supreme Court.

It is open to the appellants – revenue to take such course of action as is available in law, but this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- Judge

Sd/- Judge Nsu

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION