IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JUNE 2009 BEFORE ' " THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE AJYI' .1 GUI§F;i;}3;§*;::.'..j: _ WRIT PETITION Nos.1452641V-@529 opgtitsgrr-§rr2A% _: " BETWEEN 1 SR1 M SONNE GOWDA V PROP: Ms GEETHA ELEC'i'-'RICALS.V_ ' s/0 MARI SGNNAPPA - V AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O YALACHAHALLI, TAVAREKERE '_ _ BANGALORE-562 1:232 - - 2 SRI.SRI§3ER:\..MA §_IA PRAYENG TO QUASI-I THE L.ii'.'i"I'ER mt 25.04.2099 ISSLY_EI;'._B'!fE"I~iE R1 vmm ANX-C. ~ These on for preliminary hearing in .. .. , Grdup dayfthc Court made the following: ORDER
A in thfic writ: petitiens are Class-I
‘ El§ctf*i(:éi1 Contractors for arranging the shift duties and
‘ maintenance Wcarks in several of ma sub-stations.
-~.’-.£.’;ufl’1ce it to: say that till the year 2001 the rate of tax
deducted-hat source was only 2.26% from the bills of
contractors for income tax purpose under Section 1940
of the Income Tax. It appears” the responzient
Corporation has all of a sudden en V.
dediieting 10.30% towarde tax from ‘
February 2009. it appears, the saifi p «
ea e e
C~”””_e’ 0″; basis of a communication _issued.. by the fi;1cee::e’=,
c.efrx”-M 0 W-a_\ ‘PTCJe ” e . . *
:€\~Q. °V”5\5’ ‘ that the tax deéueted at” .$e’uree ‘shall be
M? 10.30% as eontemplatedunaier Section 1940 of the Act.
re “””””””
Aggrieved by the resmndent unilaterally ta-_r'l(1' E the rate of TDS from ' present petition is filed.
2. i1ef§ie_e,*._ Seshaehala has entered
‘V A’ _____
. 1 the matter is taken up,
L Mr.h§.v,eeei$meh.a1a,1eamea1 standing counsel appearing
:”‘~-flit”erVe efii1e”v–i&i’1eeme tax department submits that having
to the decisiens rendered by the Apex Court,
” -hieerprefixlg Section 19£S(3) of the Act, the petitjeners are
V ” to make necessary application. before the assessing
authority and the assessing authority shali consider the
request 01″ the petitioners for deductillg 2.26% as at
seurce. Until the said application is conside:ié%if”–«eii3,§i
diefmsed of, the Writ pefition is not naaintajis-§§i31¢.:Ae
4. I have hearti Mr.T.R.S1};b’ba;’3na;_4″ V’
counsel appearing for tire A”peti>’t;§«._:§z1er«. ”
Mr.M .V.Seshac hala, Tex: the ‘V V
respondent as wefl 7 as. –__for Gupta.
Indeed, the Apex cases has
Gbserved thus: ‘ ‘ _ –
“the (2) of Section 195 is to
see ti’gat._ is chargeable under
Section” {qr for” levy and collection of
= .payer “‘.éhoutd deduct income tax
at__ theiifates. force, if the amount is to be
V tpv.g;–y§z;-ngresident. The said pmvzsion w for
of moo’ me–tax thereon subject to
regeelaf and by the deduction of
iiteome’-irxx, the rights cftheparties are not, in any
V. adversely afiected. Further, the rights of
. v_t iie”payee or recipient are fully sqfeguarded under
195(2), 195(3) and 197: The oniy thing
which is required to be done is tefile an application
for de n by the Assessing Cyficer that such
sum would not be chargeable to tax in the case of
/
Conseqnently, the following order is passed:
(1) Petitioners shall make necessary apsfisafjon
within a period of four weeks from
assessing ofiicer.
(2)TI1s assessing officsjj
application at themkx-1ies£.A s fir*i11 thse’%sapp1;*m§:§ns_is’ .
are considered and an “i)1′{1er””*the
respondents shall. (j6ducE;’
Petitions disposecikif ‘
AI/–