THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that tax was required to be deducted at source only in respect of the labour component of the contract, not the material part. Consequently, interest under Section 201(1A) was not leviable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the taxability of a contract. The ITAT had split a composite contract into material and labour components for TDS purposes.
What were the issues?
Whether a composite contract can be split for TDS purposes 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
1 IN THE FilCH CJfl OF KARNATAKA AT BANOALORE DATED US THE 15114 DAY OF MARCH 2012 H?FSFNT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N KUMkR MID THE HOWELE MR. JUSTICE RAi/! MALIMATH flANO350/2011 Ben 1. The Commissioner ofIrx,omeT LW, JSB Towen, 55K III S’bge! Eaza1ore. 2 flt Itrome-Tax Or4’DS, Ward-11), ElM? Blwvan. Balsq Road Bangaicre. 3 The Income Tax O&er LW WS), JES Towss, BSK Ill Stage Bar%alore, . . APILISNTS (By Sm MM. cIa thr Sri KM. Aravird,, A&vnte) Knaffika Thwer aramas Corporation Lt&
2 Old Zilia Panchayath Building, Thmirt572 1024 RBSNDENT (By Sri C1tnya KK, Adiaocate) eOsOaCO Thi rr is filed under Stn 260A of LtAct, i1 arising out of order dated 21XW2011 passed in ifA No.136Bang1O for Assessment years 26-Q7, praying that this Hon’ble Court may psed to fannulate the substantial queatirnw of law stated therein. This ifA coming on for Hearing this day, )LflUR. J, deltred the foflowlng: This appeal is by the rnue T substantial questiorm of law thet arise for consideration in this appeal are as undn (1)Whether the Trilxsnal was right at splirtbig up the contra which, according to the rwetuse was one AIR of the compote conWad, into p such as part of the wa atributable to the value ofthe mafrriats involved InL
3 the atffon ofthe work and other past of the wntrwt such as duff works cued taking the view that tax was required to be ded ed at source only fri respect of the woi* — of the amtraa cued not materialpan ofthe contract? (2)Whether the Tribunal wasfteatifled in wnduding that Interest under Sedlon 201(M) of the Income Tax Acts I %I not leviable, as the asstaste was not liable to make any dedud&ins In respect of the ua of the material peat of the contra4 though the contract was one of whole cotnd’ I Thie Court had an occasion to consider the ap*ah what Un said qudons were involved in the case of Coetsdsdonsr Ttx and ethers S Zaoka Panr frnnsndnton Curpurutton LAwited disposed of on even date id has answered the said substant1 qutom of law in vour of tin asscss and. against the raienue
A. I 0 9 fl ‘ 0: 9 t I * I 0 I 0Th P1 I 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 →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026