Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.381 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TDS, NO.59 HMT BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS) TDS CIRCLE 18(2), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN
4TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. K V ARAVIND, ADV.,)
AND:
M/S. MEDI ASSIST INDIA TAP (P) LTD., ‘SHILPA VIDYA’, NO.49, 1ST MAIN ROAD SARAKKI INDL. LAYOUT 3RD PHASE, JP NAGAR BANGALORE-560078. ... RESPONDENT (BY Mrs. VANI H, ADV., FOR Mr. MAHESH KUMAR L, ADV.)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22.03.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.510/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, 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 PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.510/BANG/2011 DATED 22.03.2013 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 2010-11. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 04.03.2014 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right 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 on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right 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 on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right 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 on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in not taking into consideration the Explanation (a) & (b) of Section 194J read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(i)(vii) of the Act?
(v) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in shifting the burden on the revenue to verify the payment of tax by the deductee on the payments received from the assessee in order to quantify the amount of default committed by the assessee?
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