THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/313/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01063976201115 March 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that TDS was not deductible on the material component of the composite contract. Consequently, interest under Section 201(1A) was not leviable as the assessee was not liable for such deductions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the taxability of a composite contract. The core issue was whether TDS was deductible on the material component of the contract or only on the works contract portion.

What were the issues?

Whether TDS is deductible on the material component of a composite contract and if interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable in such cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I TN ThE ifiGH CJRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED ¶1115 THE 15Th DAY OF MARCH 2012 PRE ENT THE HON’BLE MRJUSTTCF N KUMAR AND THE HONtE MR. JtJflCE RAV.L MALIMATH 2 ITAN 31312011 8 Betwen 1. The Comminbner of Income Tax 3 L’ItJ, JSS Towers 3 BEN Ill Stage. Bangalore 2 The rm&Tax OflrrtTD% Wart, Bellaçy 3, The Income Tax Oer, LrJ !TDS), JSS Towen B KifiStage Bangalare APP!LL&NTS (By Sri MM. Seshachala f r Sri K \ Aravind Adwte) And’ Karnatih Powa TranesnLalon 3 Co ‘peation1M Beliy Majo Wo b Uwnion Moka Road 3 Gandhi Naga

D0U 0 2 z U’ BeUan. ,. RESK)NDENT (By Sri. LV. Aravind and Sri M V hac113ia, Advcz str) O-OG fl I’M is filed under Section 260A of LT,Act 1961 arising out of order dated 16Q32O1 I passed in ifA No263/Bangf2010, for the Asssrnent years praying that this Hon’ble Court may 8 plecsed to formulate the sulatantial quatn of law ro stated therein This ITA coming on for Heating this day, ILKUMAL J, deliwred the following’ 0U This apl is by the riue. Tbs substantial r qustiora of law that arise for consideran in this appeal are a under: (1)Whe’ther the Thbuncd was right in spWthig up the connct, which, according to the reuniue, was one MB of the crmposfte contract into pfl qc?i aspefl nfthe wrflnat nthlb’&bs to the ta ofthe materiaL uwolum it 11 6U

I 0UI 3 2; the execution ofthe work and otherpart O fle conwcasuohduU works and taking the mao rh tar was required to be deducted at source only tit respect of r the work — of the a,ntract and not I nwtenalpart ofthe contract? (2$lttether the Tflbunai was justified 2 in ocmcksdinq that interest under Section 201(M) ofthe income Tai. Act, 1961 is not lwlabk as the assessee was not liable to make any deductions in respect oftheuahsecfthernatenal • part of the conflt, though the contn. was one of whole contract?’ I Th Court had an ocoaSn to consider the appeala where the said quatons were invoked in the case of Caadsdonr Zaa Tate ad hers Kar Pawn mnsmtnt Crnporatton fledfrd daymsad of on even date and has azawere• the said suhetantiai queatiora of law in favour of the assasea and agehat fl

.H COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARN &TAKA HIGH COURT OF ICARNATAK& HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK& HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU F I I I I

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →