THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/299/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01063823201115 March 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

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

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 contract, in addition to the work component.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

:20UI ‘3 1 4 I z IN fl HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE :2 8 DATED flitS THE 15Th DAY OF MARCH 2013 I ‘3 WESENT THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE N3 KUMAR AND 2 THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HA’?! MALTH 8 rn 2c2 1 Betwern S I The Commissioner of Incometax LTU, JSS Towers, BSKIN Stage, Baiaore 0 2 The Income—Tax Officer PUS 551, Sb1sbree Building “rishweshwaranagar More—570008. 3 The Income Tax Officer Liii (PUS) JSSTn e BSK m Stage Batqalore AIL&NTS (By Sri.M 3 V 3 Shacha1a forK 3 VArand Adcate) And Karnataka Power Transmission Corçraticn Ltd

I Bangalore Major Worl (5) Division Hassan RESIVNDENT (By Sri Pat basaca It A aate) This ITA is filed under Section 2&)A of LTAct 1 1%1 arising out f Order dated 23032011 passed in TM No 1O2OBangI20O9, fbr the Assseimnt year 2009-10 praying that this Hon’ble Co ifl may pleased to fonnulate the sutanl quaier of law stated therein This ITA coming on for Hearing this day, t1WMa.J delivered the following: 0 D0U This appeal is by the revenue. The substantial iseth, of law Ira arise lb snsAeran this appeal are as under: (1)Whether the TrYburtai was right in hthng the amtrad 4 ii hick acrx,rding to the revenue was me ALE of die aitnpszt anfrad into pc such as part of the contract attributable to the value of the materials involved In h

3 the execution ofthe work and otherpost of the contr such as civil works arid raking the view that tax was required to be deducted. at source only in reaped of the work pan of the contract and not vnateria<l pan ofthe contract? (2)Whether the unal was justified in x.richtding that interest wider Secdon 2OlflAflfthe Income Tax Acts 1%I is ‘3 not levlable, as the assesses was not liable m make any cleductkrns in respect of the value of the mateflal part of the contract, though the contract writ one of o whole contract?’ z0 2 This Court had an occasion to consider the apah wirre the said quaions were inilv in the se of The Cc.ntmtntonar qfmounts Tax andrs at Kantntaka Posses flansmtssion Corporation Ltntted disposed of on ewn date and has answered the said suheantial quations of law in fai.vur of the asasesee and against the revenue.

CE KARNAThKAHIGH COURT OF KARN&TAK& HIGHCOURT OF KARHATAK& HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IF I... ‘-4 4 I tjcL Ø.%- I I tn ttI

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 →