IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Alok Aradhe, H.T. Narendra Prasad, JJ.
Ttk Healthcare Tpa Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (tds), Bangalore - Respondent
Income Tax Appeal No. 303 of 2013
Decided On : 12-10-2020
Income Tax Act - Assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10 - Section 194J - Circular No.8/2009 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The appeal pertains to the assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10 and involves the question of whether the appellant, a Third Party Administrator (TPA), was required to deduct tax at source on payments made to hospitals under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant is engaged in providing TPA services on medical/health insurance policies. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) issued a show cause notice for non-deduction of tax under Section 194J, resulting in a total demand of Rs.107,54,66,829. The appellant challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the legislative history and the definition of 'professional services' under Section 194J. It held that the appellant was required to deduct tax at source on payments made to hospitals, as the services rendered by hospitals fell within the ambit of professional services. The court also discussed the applicability of Circular No.8/2009, which mandated the deduction of tax at source on payments made by TPAs to hospitals. The court concurred with the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi, upholding the applicability of Section 194J to the payments made by the appellant to hospitals.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 194J, the applicability of professional services to payments made to hospitals, and the validity of Circular No.8/2009.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the language of Section 194J was plain and unambiguous, and the payments made to hospitals for medical services fell within the scope of professional services. The court also quashed the impugned Circular No.8/2009 and directed the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority to independently apply their minds without being influenced by the Circular.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal, answering the substantial questions of law in terms of the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi, and upholding the applicability of Section 194J to the payments made by the appellant to hospitals.
JUDGMENT
Alok Aradhe, J. - 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 2004-05 to 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 03.09.2013 on the following substantial questions of law:
(i) The Hon ble Tribunal was right or justified in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in holding that the Appellant, a TPA, was required to deduct tax at source on payments made to hospitals under Section 194J of the Act?
(ii) The Hon ble Tribunal was justified in following the decisions of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dedicated Health Care Service TPA (India) Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, (2010) 324 ITR 345 (Bom.) and of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vipul Medcorp TPA (P) Ltd., v. Central Board of Direct Taxes,2011 245 ITR 325 (Del.) in arriving at the above conclusion?
(iii) Circular No.8/2009 dated 24.11.2009 issued by the CBDT can be said to be in conformity with the provision contained in Section 194J of the Act?
(iv) The Hon ble Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter to the CIT(A) to consider de novo the alternate contention of the Appellant that it cannot be held to be an assessee-in-default unless it is demonstrated that the payee-hospitals had failed to discharge their tax liability on the payments made to them by the Appellant?
(v) The Appellant is liable to pay interest in terms of Section 201(1A) of the Act?
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Factual background, in which the aforesaid substantial questions of law arise for our consideration in this appeal need mention. The assessee is a company engaged inter alia in the business of providing Third Party Administration (hereinafter referred to as the TPA for short) services on medical / health insurance policies issued by the insurance companies. The services provided by the assessee inter alia include enabling the policy holders viz., the patients to obtain medical treatment from the hospital without making upfront payments to the hospitals by direct settlement i.e., cashless scheme and reimbursement of claims of policy holders in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy. The assessee makes payment to the hospitals under the cashless scheme in fulfillment of contractual obligations between the insurance companies and the policy holders on one hand and the insurance companies and the assessee on the other hand and not in consideration of any professional services rendered by the hospital. The assessee s obligation to make payment to the hospitals is as an agent to the insurance companies and not in consideration for any professional services rendered by the hospital to the assessee.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) conducted a survey of the premises of the assessee and recorded the statement of assessee s Chief Executive Officer under Section 133A of the Act. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.01.2009 was issued to the assessee for financial years 2003-04 to 2008-09 by which assessee was asked to show cause as to why it should not be treated as assessee in default under Section 201(1) and interest be not levied under Section 201(1A) of the Act for non deduction of tax under Section 194J from the payments made by it to the hospitals. The assessee thereupon filed the written submissions on 30.01.2009. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) passed orders on 06.03.2009 under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for Financial years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and inter alia held that payments made by the assessee to the hospitals constituted fees for professional services liable for tax deduction at source under Section 194J of the Act. Accordingly, a total demand of Rs.107,54,66,829/- was raised.
4. The assessee thereupon filed appeals on 09.04.2009 before the Commissioner (Appeals). One Medi Assist India TPA (P) Ltd. approached this court by filing W.P.No
ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD. V. STATE OF HARYANA
BEN GORM NILGIRI PLANTATIONS CO. CONOOR (NILGIRIS) AND OTHERS VS. SALES TAX OFFICER
BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. V. PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.
CIT VS. KULU VALLEY TRANSPORT CO. P. LTD
CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD
DR. DEVENDRA M SURTI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT
GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CEN. (P.) LTD. VS. CIT
INDIAN IMMIGRATION TRUST BOARD OF NATAL V. GOVINDASWAMY
INDRAKUMAR PATODIA V. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD
NIMET RESOURCES INC. V. ESSAR STEELS LTD.
SRI.LAKSHMI TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS VS. HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA AND OTHERS
UCO BANK VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
VANGUARD FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MADRAS V. FRASER & ROSS, (1960) AIR(SC) 971
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.