2010 (3) TMI 732

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th the consent of counsel, made returnable forthwith. 2. On the request of counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, leave granted to delete respondent Nos. 3 to 15. 3. The first petitioner is engaged in the business of acting as a third party administrator for processing claims of policyholders insured by insurance companies. The petitioner has instituted, on 10th Oct., 2009 a petition under Art. 226 challenging the jurisdiction of the first and second respondents in calling upon the first petitioner to deduct tax at source under section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 on payments made to hospitals. The petition has now been posted for hearing and final disposal on 15th April, 2010. On 27th Oct., 2009 the first respondent passed an or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2010 an order was passed by the second respondent by which the application for stay filed by the petitioner was disposed of. The order passed records that out of a total demand of Rs. 59.06 crores, the interest component is Rs. 8.74 crores. The current demand for assessment year 2010-11 stands at Rs. 7.69 crores including an interest component of Rs. 24.75 lakhs. The order of the second respondent governs the application for stay for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. By his order, the CIT(TDS) has directed that demands raised for assessment years prior to assessment year 2010-11 need not be enforced for the time being and the assessee was allowed to submit relevant evidence before the assessment officer of the tax having been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s reasoning merely with the observation that the plea of the assessee is not acceptable and that the demands have to be realized forthwith for the current year. This cannot be even suggested to be a form of reasoning to sustain the rejection of the application for stay. In a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in KEC International Ltd. v. B.R. Balakrishnan [2001] 251 ITR 158/119 Taxman 974, parameters have been laid down to govern the manner in which applications for stay should be dealt with by adjudicating officers. Evidently, the CIT(TDS) is either ignorant of the law laid down by this Court or has acted in breach of the principles enunciated in the judgment. In either view of the matter, the entire approach of the CIT(TDS) is tho....