THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/311/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01065910201115 March 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) was not leviable as the assessee was not liable to deduct tax on the material portion of the contract. The High Court referred to a previous decision involving the same parties on similar issues.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the Income Tax Commissioner's challenge to a Tribunal's order regarding tax deduction at source. The dispute revolves around whether a composite contract could 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 so, whether tax is deductible 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

z0 I-)I I 1• 41 S LL.0 IN THE FUGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS ThE 15Th DAY 0? MARCH 2012 THE HOWBLE MR.JUSTICE N. K’JMAR AND I; THE HON’BLE W. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH 8 1TA..N0.311!2011 Bera:. 1. Th. Commissioner of Incotne-tax, LflJ, JSS Towen, BS.K m Staje, Batwdoira Z Tax Ocer ‘ItS Ward, Aavakar Bhawn. Sedam oad, Guiknrga 3 The Income Tax Officer, L’I’IJ rf’ J5E Towers, 85K III Sta 8ataiora APPELLkNTS (By Sri MVbachab for LVSraviz4 Advocate)

2 Karnaakn Power Trammission Corpor tion Ltd 0u1baa Major Worb (8) DMaio Shsran Nap 0ultaa. RP SRJNDENT (By SrL ChythazraJCK Athcate) 2 Tlâ ifA is filed under Sertlon 26011 of LT.Aet, 1%1 arising out of order dated 1803.2011 ped in ITA No.257/BarigI2009 for the Asnsm&xt year 20 10, praying that this Hon’bie Court nmy & pisased to formulate the substantial quaions of law stated thin This ifA Is oxning on for Hrmg this cia) I N.KUMAL J, delered the following: T¼. a is b th- re T1a s”ba •al quastons of law that arise for consideratEn in tim appeal are as under:s 0U (I)Whether the Tflbwia A as rig ai g splitting up the cxrntract t z C M 0U

0 I :4 acu,rdfrzg to the reverns was one 4 t3 of the composite cantnfl, into pafls S such as pa of the contra aunbutable to the value of the materials ftwolved in the exectstion ofthe work and otherpa of the contra such as civil works and taking the view that tax was required to be deducted at source crib in respect of the work pa of the contract and riot marlalpa ofthe contract? the 7flfr —ftfled in concluding that interest with. Section 201(M) of the income Tax Act, 1961 is 2 not leviable. as the assessee was not liable to make any daiuchons in respect of the value of the material post of the contract thcn.zgh the cxsntmarl was one of whole contrad* a: 2 Thai Court had an occasain to consider the 0 appeals where the said questions were inwilved in the 8 case of The Corned.stoner ofIncome Tax and otlwrs t va flrnataka Pant flanssdntrn, Ltrntted dpesed of on en date and has wered.

COURT OF KARNATAICAH1 COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIWI wuK * I H I;!; I 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 →