Ita/103/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Karnataka Power Transmission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF JUNE 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA ITA.NO.103/2013 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU, JSS Towers, BSK III Stage, Bangalore 2. The income-Tax Officer, (TDS) LTU, JSS Towers, BSK III Stage, Bangalore … Appellants (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND: M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission CorporationLtd., Major Works division, Bangalore Road, Kolar. … Respondent This ITA filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 19.10.2012 passed in ITA No.156/Bang/2012, for the assessment year 2005-2006, praying to formulate substantial question of law stated therein and to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the ITAT dated 19.10.2012 in ITA No.156/Bang/2012 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, (TDS) LTU, Bangalore. This ITA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following: J U D G M E N T In this appeal by the Revenue under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant has sought to raise the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the contract awarded by the assessee to 3[rd] party for erection, installation and execution of civil work of power lines and power stations was not composite contracts and no TDS was liable to be deducted in respect of payments made by the assessee to the contractors for purchase of materials involved in the said contract? 2. Whether the Assessee were correct in the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the computation made by the assessing Officer u/s 201(1) and 201(1A)?”; 2. Sri. K.V.Aravind, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that identical question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in the case of the sister concern of the respondent Tumkur Division and the same has been followed in the case of Shimoga Division also. However learned standing counsel submits that the appeal may be admitted and kept pending to await the out come of the decision of the Supreme Court in other cases of the like question which has been carried by way of appeal to the Supreme Court. 3. It is open to the revenue to carry this matter also by way of appeal to the Supreme Court. 4. In the circumstances, we answer the question against the revenue and consequently the second question automatically does not survive for consideration. 5. Hence we dismiss the appeal. SD/- JUDGE RS/* SD/- JUDGE