9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken together for disposal by this common order. First we take up the assessee's appeal i.e. ITA No.5400/M/2013. ITA No.5400/M/2013 2. The sole issue agitated by the assessee through its grounds of appeal is relating to disallowance under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act on account of payments made to hospitals without deduction of TDS in violation of provisions of section 194J of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) had made addition of Rs.85,05,05,515/- invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS as per the provisions of section 194J. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.10,65,669/- and deleted the remaining addition of Rs.84,94,39,847/- on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 40(a)(ia) cannot be automatic when the assessee has not claimed this payment as expenditure against the income. The assessee has shown the income, only the service charges receivable from insurance companies for rendering services as 3rd party administrator and not having any margin or profit element in the payment received from the insurers for the purpose of remitting to the hospitals to settle medical claim of the insured. Therefore, when the said payment has not been claimed as expenditure incurred for earning the income by the assessee then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted for non deduction of tax at source in respect of the said payment. Following the decisions of the Tribunal as relied upon by the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd No.3, the Revenue has agitated the deletion of disallowance of Rs.1,70,027/- on account of unreconciled receipts. It has been agitated on behalf of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance without properly appreciating the factual and legal matrix of the case. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A), after going through the reconciliation statement, had accepted the contention of the assessee that the difference was on account of different method of accounting of Revenue. The assessee had shown income much more than as reflected in the ICS data. He agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the differential amount had been shown either in earlier or later years. We do not find any infirmity in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
