Ita/271/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income - Tax v. M/S Ttk Healthcare Tpa Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD LT.A. NO.271 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX |TDS, NO.59, HMT BHAVAN.TDS, NO.59, HMT BHAVAN. 4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD. GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE. 2 |ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)CIRCLE-18(1), NO.403, 4TH FLOORHMT BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 032.CIRCLE-18(1), NO.403, 4TH FLOORHMT BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 032. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. TTK HEALTHCARE TPA PRIVATE LIMITED2 H.B. COMPLEX, LOOFT|BIM RING ROAD, BIM 1ST STAGE.BIM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043. .. RESPONDENT (BY Mr. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2013 PASSED IN [TA|NO.831/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10,|PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:(1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERPASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.831/BANG/2015|DATED 19-12-2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE|COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THEORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONEROFINCOME|TAX(TDS),CIRCLE-18(1),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 matterof the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10.The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court videorder dated 05.06.2015 on the following substantialquestions of law:| (1)Whether the Tribunal was correct|in holding that provisions of Section 194J ofthe Act nas to be applieq only to thepayments whicn assume tne nature of fee forprofessional services and not on the entirecomposite payments, when the Dill contains—Charges for various services rendered by theNospital, as sucn payment or for servicesrendered as a whole? (il)Whether the Tribunal was correctin airecting bifurcation of payment made bythe assessee with reference to the serviceswhen the provisions of section 194J of the Actdoes|notprovidefor.bifurcationofacomposite payment? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct|in holding that interest under Section 201(1A).of the Act is to be computed upto tne quedate of return of income to be filed by thedeductee and not upto the date of filing ofreturn of income contrary to proviso toSection 201(1A) of the Act? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was correct|Innottaking Into.considerationtheExplanation (a) & (b) of Section 194J readwith Explanation 2 to Section 9(i)(vil) of theAct? 2.|We nave neard the learned counsel for theparties at length. For the reasons assigned by us by anorderpassed|today|InI.T.A.No.323/2013, the substantial questions of law are answered as answeredin IL.T.A.No.323/2013 and the order of the Tribunal tothe extent it directsbifurcation of payments made bythe assessee with reference to the medical services only|is hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is partly|allowed. SS| Sd/-JUDGE.Sd/-—JUDGE.