Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1244 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 192 or 194J - payment in respect of doctors engaged as retainers and consultants - demand raised by the AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) - Scope of employer-employee relationship - distinction between a "contract for service" and a "Contract of service" - scope of terms and clauses of agreements entered into deductor company and retainer doctors/consultants doctors categorically affirm that there existed an evident employee employer relationship between the deductor company and retainer doctors/ consultants doctors - whether payment made to consultants doctors and retainer doctors should fall under the head Salary and the assessee hospital/ company was liable to deduct TDS at the rate applicable in the case of salary? - HELD THAT:- Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in one of the group cases namely ACIT vs M/s. Fortis Healthcare Ltd. Mohali (2016 (3) TMI 629 - ITAT CHANDIGARH) after a detailed analysis of the terms of the agreements of the retainer doctors as well as the salaried doctors and considering the decisions of various Benches of the ITAT and the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ivy Health Life Sciences (P) Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1063 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that the provisions of Section 194J applied to the retainer doctors and not those of Section 192. In the case of EHIRC Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 1660 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] after analyzing the two types of agreements identical to those in the present appeals and referring to judgements of other Hon'ble High Courts held that the retainer doctors attracted the provisions of Section 194J and not those of Section 192. Having gone through the provisions of section 192, Section 194J, Section 201 of the Income tax Act 1961, facts of the instant case and the judicial pronouncements on the issue involved, we are inclined to hold that the provisions of section 194J of the Act are applicable to the assessee and not those of section 192 of the Income tax Act 1961 therefore, the appellant cannot be treated as an "assessee in default" in so far as the question of deducting tax at source in respect of doctors engaged as retainers and consultants was concerned. - Decided against revenue.
|