Ita/210/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF MARCH, 2020 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NAGA PRASANNA ITA NO. 210 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),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.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.544/Bang/2010DATED16/03/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE.COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY.|THEINCOMETAXOFFICER, TDS,WARD-16(1),BANGALORE, EITC., THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY Al OK ARADE ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax.Act has been filed by the revenue which was admitted bya Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.9.2012 by.framing the following the substantial questions of law: /$Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding|that the analysis and distribution(SLDC) of)electricity Dy KPTCL from generation point to.the customers of the assessee_ involvingutilizationof|sopnisticatedmachineries,involvement of technical expertise, applicationof science, services of engineers, engagement | //$ 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. against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the| result the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- | JUDGE. Sd/-| JUDGE Psg”*