THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

I IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DAThO THIS THE 15Th DAY OF MARCH 2012 PRESENT Q HON’BLE J3ICE IL KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MIt JUCE RAW MALIMATH TfA.NO.3361 2011 Between: 1. T& Commisürner of Ltxomet’tax, LItJ, JSS Towers, BSK III Stage, Baxa1ore 2. The Itrome-Tax 3W:-, TDS Ward —11), Beiy Road, Bangalore 3. Income-Tax Oer, LIlT (ItS), JSS Towen, BSK III Stage, BangaIore ..APLlANTS (By SrL MV.Shacha1a for LV.Aravixd, AdlKxste) Att Kanflka war Trarsmlsion Corjx,ratian Lal OH Zith Pnhayath Building,

2 Tumkur-572 1 RESNDENT (By Sn. Chyt)aza K.K Admte) This ifA is filed under Sün 2fA)A of LT.Act, 1gM arising out of order dated 21SW2011 passed in rrA NoJ8Q/Bang/2010, for the Asseastuent year 20(15- 05, prayIng t this HonYble Court may bs pleased formulate the substantial questbns of law stated. a This ifA conñng on for Hearing this day, NKUMAR .J, delivered the fo1wing: This appal is by the renua The substantial quatlora of law that arise for conalderathn in. this appal are as (1)Whether the 7flbunal was right Ut splitting up the contnfl, which, according to the rwenue was one AID of the composite contract, Into parts such os— ofthe contract attributable to the uahte ofthe materials Involved In the erecu&m ofthe work and otherpart

3 of the contract such as civil works and takinu the vt’ that tax was required to be deducted at souns only in reaped of the work past of the contract and not materialpart ofthe contract? (2)Whether the lflbunal was justified in arndudtng that Interest under Sedton 201(IA) ofthe Macme 7hz Ac* II Is not levlable, as the assesses was not liable to make any dedudions In respect of the value of the material port of the contrac though the contract was one of whole confrad7 2 This Court had an occasion to oons4e appeab wkre the said questions were imnilved the case of The Cow’aadaaioner qhtm. Thx and han a Karnataka Pmon flunwtsston Cotporattms LiSted disjcsed of on ewn date arid has answered the said subtantial questions of law in bur of tir assses and against the revenue

• • ‘iCJ. i ‘ •T.\ ‘. r du • rk’ii i •t SItt’i T4A uGh Coti C ‘W I’ S4i ‘CA ‘.1 h4 •‘ $A?NT4KA nGt I I ‘a 0 ‘-4 && 0Th tlI 0> P2 IJ

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION