CIT vs M/S Karnataka Power Transmission… | Karnataka High Court 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5TH 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.51 of 2013

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER (TDS) LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE

… APPELLANTS

[By Sri K V Aravind, Standing Counsel]

AND:

M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. MAJOR WORKS DIVISION NEAR RAILWAY STATION SHIMOGA

… RESPONDENT

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1134/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2 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 appellant – 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 OF INCOME TAX v. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

3 CORPORATION LIMITED’ and therefore this question having 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 appellant – revenue to take such course of action as is available in law, but this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

AN/-

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