Ita/208/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co Ltd
High Court
20 Mar 2020 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ita/208/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co Ltd
Date of order
20 Mar 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/208/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co Ltd, the High Court (2020) dismissed the appeal under Section 194, Section 201, Section 194J of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether the TridDunal was correct in deletingthe interest levied under Section 201(1A) of)tne Act, for non-deduction of tax at source as.required under Section 194J of the Act?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF MARCH, 2020PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NAGA PRASANNA
ITA NO. 208 OF 20127
BETWEEN:
1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,|TDS,TDS,
HMT BHAVAN,BELLARY ROAD,BELLARY ROAD,
BANGALORE
2.THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-TDS,
WARD-16(1),
HM! BHAVAN,
BELLARY ROAD,
BANGALORE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND"
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO., LTD..,CORPORATE OFFICE,CORPORATE OFFICE,
IV FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE,|
BANGALORE-560 OO1.
. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. A/W SRI.M.LAVA|ADVOCATE)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 2JZ60A OF THINCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL|AND SEI ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE IITAT,BANGALOREINLTA]NO.542/Bang/2010DATED16/03/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE.COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY.THE|INCOMETAXOFFICER,TDS,WARD-16(1),BANGALORE, ETC.,
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAYALOK ARADE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-|
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax
Act has been filed by the revenue which was admitted by.
a Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2012 byframing the following the substantial questions of law:
0%Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding|that the analysis and distribution(SLDC) ofelectricity by KPTCL from generation point to.the customers of tne assessee_ involvingutilizationof|sopnisticatedmachineries,involvement of technical expertise, applicationof science, services of engineers, engagement|that the analysis and distribution(SLDC) ofelectricity by KPTCL from generation point to.the customers of tne assessee_ involvingutilizationof|sopnisticatedmachineries,involvement of technical expertise, applicationof science, services of engineers, engagement|
00%
of qualified technicians and trained, skilled.personnel/manpower does not amount to.tecnnical services to attract provisions of)Section 194] of tne Act?
Whether the TridDunal was correct in deletingthe interest levied under Section 201(1A) of)tne Act, for non-deduction of tax at source as.required under Section 194J of the Act?
When the matter was taken up today, learned Senior|counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid|substantial question of law involved in this appeal nave.already been answered in favour of the assessee by aDivision Bencn of this Court vide judgment dated.22.03.2016 passed in ITA No.438/2012 and otherconnected matters. The aforesaid contention made by tne.learned Senior Counsel for the respondent could not bedisputed py the learned counsel for the Revenue. |
For the reasons aforesaid judgments, the substantial
questions of law framed in this appeal are answered.
+-+0,19�9/3�73@3,53�+,6�0,�;+@:57�:;�9/3�+1131133���,�9/3�
731549�9/3�+223+4�01�601<01136���
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�����������
������
�1-G�
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.