THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TTK HEALTHCARE TPA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/328/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01030143201313 October 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in directing the bifurcation of payments made by the assessee for medical services. The Court quashed the Tribunal's order to the extent it directed this bifurcation.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal raised questions about the applicability of Section 194J to composite payments and the computation of interest under Section 201(1A).

What were the issues?

Whether Section 194J applies to composite payments and how interest under Section 201(1A) should be computed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194J,Section 201(1A),Section 9(i)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.328 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TDS, NO.59 HMT BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS) TDS CIRCLE 18(2) NO 59, HMT BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. K V ARAVIND, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. TTK HEALTHCARE TPA PVT. LTD., NO 2, H B COMPLEX 100 FEET BTM RING ROAD BTM I STAGE, BTM LAYOUT BANGALORE 560068. ... RESPONDENT (BY Mr. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - -

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED IN ITA

NO.429/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.429/BANG/2011 DATED 28-02- 2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), TDS CIRCLE- 18(2), BANGALORE.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that provisions of Section 194J of the Act has to be applied only to the payments which assume the nature of fee for professional services and not on the entire composite payments, when the bill contains charges for various

services rendered by the hospital, as such payment or for services rendered as a whole?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing bifurcation of payment made by the assessee with reference to the services when the provisions of section 194J of the Act does not provide for bifurcation of a composite payment?

(iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act is to be computed upto the due date of return of income to be filed by the deductee and not upto the date of filing of return of income contrary to proviso to Section 201(1A) of the Act?

(iv) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not taking into consideration the Explanation (a) & (b) of Section 194J read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(i)(vii) of the Act?

2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. For the reasons assigned by us by an order passed today in I.T.A.No.323/2013, the substantial questions of law are answered as answered in I.T.A.No.323/2013 and the order of the Tribunal to the extent it directs bifurcation of payments made by the assessee with reference to the medical services only is hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE ss

More judgments on Section 194J

All 1,434 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194J →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →