THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/301/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01063825201115 March 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that tax was not required to be deducted on the material part of the contract. Consequently, interest under Section 201(1A) was not leviable on the non-deducted amount related to the material component.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2007-08. The core issue was whether tax was deductible at source on the material component of a composite contract, in addition to the work component.

What were the issues?

Whether tax is deductible at source on the material component of a composite contract, and consequently, whether interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable on such non-deducted amounts.

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 OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED US THE I 572! DAY 0? MARCH I2 FflSENT THE HOWBLE MR 1 JUSTICE N. KIJMAR AND THE HOWBLE . JUCE RAVI MAL(ATH TFA.NO 1 3OI,’2011 I CommisS of Income-tax till, JSS Towers, B Ill Stage, Bazahn 2. The Income-Tax Officer ThE Ward C.R 1 BuMmg Nawrwgar Hufl 3 The LNme Tax Officer L’ItI (ThS) JSS Towat asic m st., Baza1ore APPELlANTS (By Sri MM 1Seehacbaia for K V Aravind Adata) Karaka wer Tnmseion Corration LM 1, Major Works DMsion,

2 Vidyut Nagar Karwar Road Hubli - 580 RESNDENT (By Sri Clflanya Adwoate) -aaaa i ifA is ified under Sawn 260A of LT.Aot, 1%1 arising out of Order dated 1&O32O11 passed In ITA No 231Bangfl010 fr the Assessmant year 2007- Q8 prayi tint this In’ble Court may in psed to krznulate the substantial questions of law stated thetIn This nA coining on for Hearing this days N.K.J. delkered the tlbwlng This appeal is by the rtue The subeanal qusdora of law dat arise thr sderatton in tiil apjal are as uMer: (1$Thether the lflbunal was ht th spWtthg up the contract, which, accrdbig to the revenue, was one AIR of the composite wnfrn4 Into parte such as part of the contract altnbutable to the vahie of the materials involved in

S the4n ofthe work and oV of the contract such as th’Q works and toksng the view that tax was required be dechicted at mte only fri respect of the work part of the amtract and not materialpwt ofthe contract? the TrQuncd wasjustified In wndudffig that Interest under Section 201(M) ofthe Income Tax A4 1961 Ls not ladafta, as the assesses was not liable to mae any deductions in respect of the valise of the material part of the coet, though the contract was one of whole contract?’ 2. This Court had an ocoasion to consider the appeak where the said quans were hr the case of The mmüdow flm. Th* end hers va Xumka Ymun flnnsmfsden Cmpwntfon limited disposed of on et date and has answered the said sübtantial qufiom of law in bur of the asseseec and agahat the revenua

I. 4 11 iNfO) H9IH V)IVLNVM dO4 fl9 SdflQ)J

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 →