The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH 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.368 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

THE MEDI ASSIST INDIA TPA [P] LTD., "SHILPA VIDYA" NO.49, I MAIN ROAD SARAKKI INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT III PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE-560078 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI B MADHAVAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SRI M BALASUBRAMANIAN. ... APPELLANT (BY Mr. MAHESH KUMAR L, FOR Mrs. VANI H, ADVS.,)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(TDS) TDS CIRCLE-18(2) BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, 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.503 & 501/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10

AND 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.503 & 510/BANG/2011 DATED 22.03.2013.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR 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 assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2014 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was perverse in holding that the Appellant being the Third Party Administrator is liable to deduct Tax at source under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act in respect of payments to the

hospitals, made by the Appellant on behalf of the Insurance Companies?

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. For the reasons assigned by us in I.T.A.No.303/2013, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE ss