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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/312/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01064097201115 March 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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 component. Consequently, interest under Section 201(1A) was not leviable on the material part.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The core issue was whether tax was required to be deducted at source on the material component of a composite contract.

What were the issues?

Whether tax is deductible at source on the material component of a composite contract, and if interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable when no deduction was made on the material part.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DAItD fluB THE 15’17( DAY OF MARCH 2012 ESENT WE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH ffA 4 NO.3 1212011 commissioner ofIncome-tax UN, JSS Towers BSK UI Stage BazaIora 2 The Income-Tax Oer, Its Ward, Sedam Road, 3. The Income-Tax Officor, MU (TDS) as Towmt, 88K. UI Stage, BaxaIore. .ALIANTS (By Sit M.Vacha1a for LVAravh4 Advocate) And Karnataka Power Traxsminion Corporathn Ltd, Chilbarga Major Works( Division Saran Nar,

Gu1barga .RE8NDENT (By SrL Ct1wiya K.L, Adcate) 0a0GG This ITA is filed under Section 28(1k of LT,Act, 1981 arising out of order dated 1&O32011 passed in fl’A No2581BangI2O10, for the Mssmt year 2009 10, praying tt this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to fórmulate the substana1 qutions of law stated This ITA coming on for Hearing this day, NJLUMAR delired the follawir: This appeal is by the rnue The sutantial questions of law that arise for conslderatkn In this appeala as (1)Whether the 7Wbunal was ht tn pUthng up the oantract which, the reverwe, was one ALB of the tnposite cxmtiri4 into pcut9 such as part of the ntrad attributab1e to the uake ofthe materials involved in the emcu&n ofthe work and otherp

3 of the such as dvii woi*s and taking the view that tax was reqtdred to be deducted at source onbj in respect of the wot* past of the czmtract cutd not materialpart ofthe amtracZ’ 2)Whether the Tribunal wasjustified in conducting that Interest under Se*lon 201(IA) of the bwome Tax Act, II not iwlabk as the assessee was not liable to ma anij deductions In respect of the valise of the material part of the cxntract, though the cmitracf was one of whole contract’ 2 This Court had an ocoathn to coner the apph wre said quns were izwulved i the case of Comndaa4anir afhwome Th and athira VL kanka Power 7ansmfssKon Co,pomtton Zâadt*d disposed of on en date ax1 has amwered the said substantial qutio of law in faur of the assessee and aimt the xwenue

I 4 p 1’ ‘a ‘-4 I 0> d I

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 →