TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laneous Application (MA) filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal in ITA. Nos. 7202/Mum/2017, 7203/Mum/2017 & 7205/Mum/2017 pertaining to AYs. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. 3. It is noted that, these appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 31.05.2019 wherein the assessee's appeal was dismissed. However, by preferring the MA Nos. 63 to 65/Mum/2020, the assessee hospital brought to the notice of the Tribunal that Ground nos. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal pertaining to all the assessment years have not been adjudicated. Finding the same to be correct, the Tribunal recalled its common order dated 31.05.2019 for the "Limited Purpose" of adjudicating ground nos. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal by holdin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce there was no liability to deduct tax at source by the appellant. Hence levy of interest of Rs.2,18,892/- under section 201(1A) is contrary to provisions of law and same be deleted. 1.2 Without prejudice to above, Appellant submits that there was no liability to deduct TDS in respect of MRI charges collected in the bill of patients and paid back to Bombay MRI Pvt. Ltd. The MRI charges were only collected by the appellant so as to ensure effective supervision and control and same was remitted Bombay MRI Pvt. Ltd. Hence, the levy of interest of Rs.2,18,892/- on Rs.6,08,035/- is contrary to law & therefore the same should be deleted." 5. In the above grounds, the assessee (Hospital) has contended that, as per the Memorandum of U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, the hospital shall act as coordinating agency whereby MRI charges levied by the company to patients will get add to the patients bill generated by the Hospital and as and when the amount is received from patient the same shall be paid back by the Hospital to the Company on a monthly basis. (12) In consideration of Hospital allowing the company to carry on MRI Centre as stated above the company shall pay to the Hospital Rs.25 Lakhs per annum exclusive of taxes if any, as compensation which shall by payable on monthly basis. (15) This agreement shall remain in force upto 30th June 2014 business end." 7. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee had permitted the MRI company to operate its MRI facility within its hospital p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id not charge any mark-up or profit over and above the charges/fees stipulated by the MRI company to be charged from the patients, it was a case of pure reimbursement and therefore there was no necessity for deduction of tax at source. Since there was no requirement of deduction of tax at source, the question of levy of interest for non-deduction of taxes on the same does not arise. In support of the foregoing, the Ld. AR referred to the Answer to Q No. 7 given by the CBDT in their Circular No. 715 of 1985. He pointed out that the assessee had out of oversight withheld and paid taxes at the rate of 2% u/s 194C of the Act on the payments made to the MRI company. Whereas the AO had held that the taxes were deductible at the rate of 10% u/s 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t fact would not absolve the assessee's liability u/s 201(1A) of the Act to pay interest on non-deducting of tax u/s 194J of the Act and so he urged that we should not interfere with the impugned order on this issue. 9. We have heard both the parties on this issue and also perused the material placed before us. The main contention raised by the assessee before us is that, it is not required to withhold tax on the payments made to the MRI company since it is only acting as a collection agent on its behalf. The assessee states that, it is receiving fees from the patients who have availed MRI services from the MRI company and is handing it over back to the MRI company and therefore the question of deducting tax on the same does not arise. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ities. Neither the assessee nor the lower authorities have been able to bring on record the correct facts as to the relationship between the assessee and the MRI company viz., whether it is a principal-agent or principal -principal relationship. Hence, the contentions raised by the assessee before us remains unsubstantiated and unverified. Upon query from the Bench, the Ld. AR had claimed that the MRI company had deducted taxes on the fees of Rs.25 lacs paid to the Hospital for the collection & supervisory services rendered by it, but no evidence in support thereof was placed before us. According to us, all these factors needs to be analyzed to decide about the nature of relationship and the relevant facts needs to be ascertained as to whet....