THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

1 IN THE HIGH CJRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED flilS THE j5Th DAY OF RCH 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRJUSflCE L KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAW MALIMAII{ fl’A.NOS442011 Beeen: 1. flz Dommlsthnet ofIrtax, MU, JSS Towers, BSK ifi Stage, Bangalore 3. The IzmeTax Officer TDS, WardS IN1), H?stI fflavan Bellary Road, Barwalora 3 The Ineome Tax Officer Lit, rDS), JSS Towt, BSK ifi Stage, Banga1ore . APPELLANTS (By Sri. M,V.Sshackia for K.V.&avir4 Adcate) Art Kama1 Power frammission j Corpora*>n Ltd.,

6 k i < 8 11 VNV)VOü, vv o nc HNH VNV thy) o tnc wu I 1•. I 11 $1

3 the exeastion ofthe work and othcp of the wnfr such as duLl works and taking the view that tax was required to be deducted at nrce onltj In respect of the work port of the contract and not materialpet ofthe contract? t2)Whether the lflbwial wasJustified In ocsndudlng that interest under Satan 201(1,4) ofthe Income Tax Ad 4 1 %1 not leviable, as the aesessee was not liable to make any deductions in respect ofthe value of the material pafl of the contract, though the contract was one of whole contract?’ 2. Thi Court had an occasion to consider the appeek wbsre the said quana were in the case of ha Canadian aflWcanae and Jt a Mama flwmu.t.t Cmporatton United disposed of on awn date and has answered the said substantial questions of law in favinir of the asseasec and against the rawnue.

O2 1 tlI