THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/306/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01063827201115 March 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that tax was only required to be deducted at source on the work portion of the contract, not the material portion. Consequently, interest under Section 201(1A) was not leviable.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the taxability of a contract. The core issue was whether a contract should be split into material and work components for TDS purposes.

What were the issues?

Whether a composite contract can be split for TDS purposes and if interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable when no TDS was made on the material component.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

02x (2 3: 4 z IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE IS” DAY OF MARCH 2012 E SENT THE HON’BLE MR4USTICE N. KtTMAR AND THE HON’BLE ME JUSTICE RPVI MALIMATH TTANO 30612011 Betwn. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax LTU, 366 Towers BSK Ill Stage, BaraIore, 2. The Income-Tax Officer ¶IDS Wad Aavakar Bhavan Se-lam Road GvIbarga 3. Tho Incotn Tar )fflccr LTU TDS 353 Towers BSKm Stags Bangainre . AELLAN (By Sn M V SchaIa for KV.&av, Ad)

I And Kanza fl,wer Transmission Coradon Ltd. Gulbarga Major Worh (5) Division Sbaran Nagar RzsNDEwr (By SrL ChythanyaJCK Adwcate) This ITA is filed under Section 2A of LtAct, 1%l arising out of Order dated 18 O32O11 passed in ifA No 252/Bang/2010, for the Assassment year 2O W praying that this Hon’ble Court ny be pleased to formulate the substantial questions of law stated This ifA corning on fbr Hearing this day, ZUCJ, deliwral the following: This appeal is the ranue The substanal questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal are as under (1)Whether the Tnbunal was right in spbttlng up the wratrcfl, which, czu.xirdlng to the revenue, was one ALE of the compca wntm into pcfl

z0U Sx 3 4 z *..j: (35 pert ofthe contract attrfbutcibke to the vakse of the rnateflals involved in B the exeaidon ofthe work arid attn part of the contract such as dvii works and taking the view that tax was required to be dedncted at sourco only in req.a of the work pwt of the contract and not O mana: pert ofthe contract cc: D0 * thWbuncdwasjusUfid in conduamg that interest under Secton .201(1A) of the Income ‘Tar Act 1961 ie not lee able as the assesses was pj liable to make any deductions in respect .f the value of the materbl part of the contract though the contract was one of x whole o*nthzctP’ 2 This Court had an occasien to consider the appeals .flue the said quastions were hnmlvc in the case of The mntserar qflncseme This an akin flg flntatakn e(flf flflfl4fljØfl (_pflflftQfl Limited disposed of on. ewn ate and has answered

was wn*i*i*niufl WUICI OP KAKNAIAICA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAICA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 9 I II I! it I. I El I’fl

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →