Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.47 seconds)Section 194J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra State Electgricity ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 30 May, 2012
4(3)(ii) In view of the above, it could be said that the technical staff
by operating and maintaining its grid stations and transmissions lines
simply discharge their functions and do not render any technical
service to the assessee, therefore, section 194J of the Act does not
apply. Similarly, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of
Maharashtra State Electricity Vs ITO dated 27.06.2012 held that -
:-14-:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Ito on 25 October, 2001
In the case of Chattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Income Tax
Officer (supra), the Tribunal again held that transmission lines are in the
physical control of PGCIL, these are maintained and operated by it. So
far as the assessee is concerned, its interest in the transmission lines is
restricted to the fact that electrical power purchased by the assessee,
simultaneously with other bulk power beneficiaries, is transmitted
through these transmission lines. The assessee has no control over the
operations of the transmission lines, and all that it gets from the
arrangements is that it can draw the electrical power purchased from
PGCIL's transmission lines in an agreed manner. The Tribunal
accordingly held that there is no application of provisions of section
194I of the Act to the impugned payments for transmission of
electricity. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are extracted
hereunder for the sake of reference:-
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs Ito on 13 July, 2005
the ld. CIT(A). It was further contended that identical issue was examined
by the different Benches of the Tribunal, in which the Tribunal has taken a
view in favour of the assessees. The ld. counsel for the assessee has
placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
M/S Bangalore Electricity Supply ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 March, 2012
4. Assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with the submission
that transmission/wheeling charges paid by the assessee to the holding
company i.e. UPPCL are in the nature of reimbursement. The amount of
Rs.1,65,32,88,040/- was revised to Rs.1,14,35,81,259/- as on 2.11.2011
pursuant to the order passed by the UPERC. Adjustment to the extent of
Rs.75,56,04,028/- have been done in the next financial year. It was further
contended before the ld. CIT(A) that there was no liability for the assessee
to recover TDS on the payment of transmission charges, as it is not fixed till
date as the order passed by TDS authorities has been set aside by the
appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A) re-examined the issue in the light of the
orders of the Tribunal in the case of Bangalore Electricity Supply vs. I.T.O.
and Maharashtra State Electricity vs. I.T.O. and being convinced with the
explanations of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that there is no
liability of TDS on the payment of transmission charges under section 194J
of the Act. He accordingly set aside the addition of Rs.1,65,32,88,040/-
made by the Assessing Officer under section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act.