TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee's identical sole substantive grievance raised in both the instant appeals challenges correctness of the lower authorities' action invoking Section 201(1) and 201(1A) TDS recovery mechanism involving the impugned demands of Rs. 7,72,740/- and Rs. 1,53,126/-; respectively. 3. The Revenue's stand throughout is that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS on surrogacy payments made to the concerned payee(s) as against the latter's plea that Section 194C does not apply in the facts herein. 4. It emerged during the course of hearing that this tribunal's co-ordinate bench decision in assessee's cases itself has upheld the learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stablish an infertility centre. The year 1978 saw the first baby born through IVF transfer. 19. We continue to notice that next decade of 1980 to 1989 witnessed the famous surrogate child's custody dispute 'Baby M case' in the year 1986 wherein the New Jersey Supreme Court (USA) rejected the corresponding surrogacy agreement as an illegal one. It was during all these developments only that the year 1985 witnessed the first successful gestational surrogacy and the same practice procedure has been continuing as on date to help issueless couples or those female(s) or male(s) who wish to have a surrogate child. 20. Coming to India, it was in the year 2002 that the surrogacy was legalised on commercial lines and continued upto ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....negates the assessee's stand that it is neither a party to the surrogacy agreement nor any right or liability flows thereof on its role as an infertility clinic. 23. We further notice with the Revenue's able assistance and from a perusal of the case file at pg. 35 that the NGO (supra) herein has proposed the assessee to arrange for surrogate mothers in lieu of the decided remuneration of Rs. 4 lakhs for single and Rs. 4.5 lakhs in case of twins' pregnancies; respectively. This NGO further claimed itself as working for rehabilitation for poor & destitute woman after they were neglected by their families facing poverty and other adverse circumstances. The assessee is fair enough in not disputing the fact that it had duly agreed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s well to observe these parties have done nothing else but exploited the poor and destitute surrogate mothers without even paying the adequate compensation. Rather the payee 'NGO' and its office bearer(s) have prima facie swindled the entire money. This conclusion flows from the entire surrogacy procedure adopted by the assessee with the so called NGO and its authorised person as it is evident from the perusal of the case file in the light of human probabilities after removing all blinkers as held in Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT [ (1995) 214 ITR 801] (SC) and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More [ (1971) 82 ITR 540] (SC). We thus conclude that so far as the application of 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) is concerned, the assessee's all other arguments regar....