October 20 To October 26, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 43 u (^49407)
was calculated based on estimate of costs
from previous experience.
However, the assessee failed to produce
any material before the AO to show that
the estimate was based on the previous
experience. Therefore, the AO rightly held
that the provision made hadn’t crystallised
or ascertained at the end of the previous
year and, therefore, the assessee’s claim was
merely provisional in nature.
TPAs e ar liable to deduct TDS u/s
194J on medical services alone while
making payment to hospitals
Vipul Medcorp TPA (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2018]
97 taxmann.com 670 (Delhi - Trib.)
Assessee-company was engaged in the busi-
ness of providing Third Party Administration
(TPA) services for medical insurance policies
issued by Insurance Companies. Assessee had
made payment to various hospitals for which
assessee had not deducted TDS.
Assessing Officer (AO) held that CBDT vide
circular No. 8/2009 dated 24-11-2009 had clarified
that TPAs making the payments on behalf
of the insurance company to the hospitals
over settlement of medical insurance claim,
etc., under various schemes were liable to
deduct tax at source under section 194J on
such payments to the hospitals.
The Tribunal held as under:
Assessee was required to deduct tax at
source while making payment to hospitals
under section 194J, thus, the assessee was
clearly in default in not deducting TDS on
such payments.
Only professional services relating to medical
services alone were liable for deduction of
tax at source and no tax was required to be
deducted from the amount paid towards bed
charges, medicines used for patients, trans-
portation charges, implants, consumables, etc.
Exp. owards t corporate brand iden-
tity xercise e & logo design wasn’t
capital in nature: ITAT
Indiabuild Villas Development (P.) Ltd. v.
Dy. CIT [2018] 98 taxmann.com 187 (Ban-
galore - Trib.)
The ITAT held that in a case where an agree-
ment was for specific purpose of advertising
of projects, payments made for the said pur-
pose would not to be treated as attributable
to specific project and capitalized.
Therefore, where assessee-real estate developer
was engaged the services of one Ogilvy for
the purpose of corporate brand identity ex-
ercise, logo design and collateral design, this
was to be in the nature of general expenses
not attributable to any project and payment
to the extent it related to the aforesaid ex-
penses couldn’t be capitalised and had to be
allowed as revenue expenditure.
No nefit be of reduced rate of TDS as
projection of losses by assessee was
questionable: HC
OPJ Trading (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 98 tax-
mann.com 117 (Gujarat)
Assessee-company was engaged in trading and
financing activities. It applied to Assessing
Officer for granting a certificate of exemption
from deduction of tax at source.
On tentative re-working of assessee’s accounts,
Assessing Officer (AO) formed a prima facie
opinion that loss of assessee would come to
` 26.57 crore and he suggested collection of
tax at reduced rate of 1 per cent.
Commissioner noticed that losses projected
by assessee did not appear to be genuine as
only business of assessee was obtaining loans
from outside agencies and advancing loans
or making investments in group companies,
and, accordingly, during relevant year also
large amounts of interest were paid to outside
Weekly reVieW
ron
(Ron)
#1