Ita/71/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds) v. M/S.kent Constructions Pvt.ltd., Panampi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 ITA.No. 71 of 2010() -------------------- ITA.231/COCH/2009 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT ------------------------ M/S.KENT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., ERNAKULAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. &C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal No.71 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT .Raman, Ag. C.J This is an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Actas per which there should be a substantial question of law. Thequestion in this case is as to whether the TDS should be deducted at 1%or at 2%. In this case the contractor deducted TDS at 1% on the pleathat the payments were in the nature of sub-contract payments. Onlyafter referring to the contract entered into by the assessee with thepurchasers it could be said whether it is in the nature of sub-contract ornot. The fact finding authority found that it is only a sub-contract.True, in the subsequent years the tax might have been deducted at 2%.But then, for the purpose of assessment, each year has to be takenseparately. In this case in view of the finding entered by the Tribunalafter interpreting the particular agreement in question, we do not findthat there is any substantial question of law. Merely because theinterpretation is wrong, that by itself will not lead to a substantial question of law. The question being one of interpretation of theagreement and the authorities having taken a view, we do not find anysubstantial question of law. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. P.R.RAMANActing Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms