AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 16.07.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct 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 the Tribunal was correct 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 the Tribunal w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act taking into consideration taxes paid by the hospitals. Thus, the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed in part. Being aggrieved, the assessee as well as the revenue filed the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal by an order dated 28.02.2013 inter alia held that the assessee has made payment to the hospitals towards bed charges, medicines, follow up services, out patient services etc., which do not fall within the scope of fee for professional services and therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to bifurcate the payments made by the assessee to the hospital into various heads and to confine the demand raised under Section 201(1A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ph 34 of the decision of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) (P) LTD. & ORS.', 312 ITR 225. It is also contended that proviso to Section 201(1) mandates that the onus is on the payer to establish the payment of taxes by the payee. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P.) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', (2007) 163 TAXMAN 355 (SC) and Circular dated 29.01.1997 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the bills raised by the hospital include various other charges apart from professional fees viz., the charges like medicine, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P.) LTD. and SOLAR AUTOMOBILES INDIA (P.) LTD., supra. It is also pointed out that Circular No.8/2009 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes also provides that interest would be levied till payment of tax and proviso to Section 201(1A) of the Act requiring computation of interest till the date of filing the return by the payee was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.07.2012. Thus, prior to that interest could be levied until the payment of taxes by the payee. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In Vipul Medcorp TPA (P) Ltd. & Ors. supra the Delhi High Court in paragraphs 10 and 21 has held as follows: 10. It cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicine. It is not a professional and does not earn professional income but it can be paid fee for services in the course of carrying on professional services. It is not necessary that the person who renders service and is receiving the payment/fee should himself or herself carry on the medical profession or other professions. Explanation (a) does not stipulate that the services must be rendered by the person concerned himself and not with the help, assistance, employment and engagements of others. What is covered and falls within the ambit of professional services are all services rendered in the course of medical profession or other professions. A corporate hospital offers services in the course of carrying on medical profession by the doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payee. Therefore, for a period prior to 01.07.2012, the question of burden of proof on the Assessing Officer in respect of filing of the return and payment of tax looses its significance and is rendered academic as the payer was only required to pay the interest till the date of payment of tax. Even otherwise, the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and the same is covered by decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd., and decision of this court in SOLAR AUTOMOBILES INDIA (P.) LTD. Para 10 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd., aforesaid decision reads as under: Be that as it may, the Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.01.1997 issued by the Central Board....