1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NAGA PRASANNA ITA NO. 202 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-TDS, WARD-16(1), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO., LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, IV FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. A/W SRI.M.LAVA ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.531/Bang/2011 DATED 16/03/2012 AND CONFIRM ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-16(1), BANGALORE, ETC., THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY ALOK ARADE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act has been filed by revenue which was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.9.2012 by framing following substantial questions of law: i) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that analysis and distribution(SLDC) of electricity by KPTCL from generation point to customers of assessee involving utilization of sophisticated machineries, involvement of technical expertise, application of science, services of engineers, engagement 3 of qualified technicians and trained, skilled personnel/manpower does not amount to technical services to attract provisions of Section 194(J) of Act? ii) Whether Tribunal was correct in deleting interest levied under Section 201(1A) of Act, for non-deduction of tax at source as required under Section 194J of Act? 2. When matter was taken up today, learned Senior counsel for respondent submitted that aforesaid substantial question of law involved in this appeal have already been answered in favour of assessee by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2016 passed in ITA No.438/2012 and other connected matters. aforesaid contention made by learned Senior Counsel for respondent could not be disputed by learned counsel for Revenue. For reasons aforesaid judgments, substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered 4 against revenue and in favour of assessee. In result appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Psg* Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS, Bangalore / Income-tax Officer-TDS, Ward-16(1), Bangalore v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd