THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on the material part of the composite contract. Consequently, interest under Section 201(1A) was not leviable on this portion.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the taxability of a composite contract. The core issue was whether tax deduction at source (TDS) was required on the entire contract value or only the 'work' portion, excluding the material component.
What were the issues?
Whether TDS is applicable to the material component of a composite contract and if interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable in such cases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH CCURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE N. KUMAR THE HON’BLE. bIN. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH I The Commiseioner ofIncome-tax LTt3 JES Towera, 88K III Stage, The IromeTex Offker fDS 55 g’ I, Shilpaahree Building, Vhweshwaranagar Mysore57O OO8 3 The Income Tax Offloer LTIJ (TDS) JSS Towere, 88K III Stage, BangaIore (By SrL MVhacheia r LVAravirgI, Adca)
q Corpoi•ation Ltil.., M*r Works (8) Divaior, Fleasan . (By SrL &Parthasarathi, Ade,ate) This ifA is filed under Section 2&)A of LTAct, 1%1 arising out of order dated 23O32O11 passed in 1714 NoiOI4Baq. 2., for the Assessment year •5O7 praying that this Hon’ble Court rtmy be pleased te thrrnhte the substantial questn of law stated therein This I’M is coming on for Hearing this day, NJCVM J deliwred the following: This appeal is by the rewsnue. The substantial questions of law that arise hr consideration in this appeal are as uMer: (1)fl.•• the WIburial was right in qiliffbsg qi, the an, uthich, to the reuenue was 4iJ3 of the composite contract, into p such as part of the contrc attributable
D0Ux0 I 1 to the value of the materiaLs involved in the exa’uft a ftheuork sit therpart 8 of the ntraa such as &‘il works and taking the view that tax was required to bedeductedatsourceont inresp etof the work part of the contract and not materialpart ofthe contract 2 j2)Whether the lNbunal was justfled in conthav that interest under Section 201(M) of the Income Tax Act 1%1 is not leviable as the assessee was not liable it make any deductions in respect of the value of the material part of the contract though the sntract waq as of wholewa” 2 ThIs Co itt had an octassn to consider the apjah where the said quaions w frriv in the case f list Camasaaner qflnessaa That and then ,va Kanutoka Power IWmsmtaton Corporation liaited disposed of on even date and has answered the said sulntantial quffor of law in frvour of the asse&ee and against the revenue
OUR1 C F ICARHATAK&HIGH COURT OF KARI4ATAICA HI IH COURT OF K#JNATAIC& HIGH COURT OF KARN ITAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Lr 9’ I P1 I
More judgments on Section 201(1A)
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026