TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Department : Ms. Ekta Jain, Sr. DR For The Assessee : None ORDER PER BHAVESH SAINI, J.M : 1. This appeal by the revenue has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon, dated 29.09.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee company formerly known as Artemis Medicare Services Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated on 18.05.2004. It is registered at Delhi address and is engaged in the business of managing and operating of multi specialty hospital and commenced its commercial operations by setting up the Artemis Health Institute, Gurgaon. The hospital has been utilizing services of number of Doctors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while the tax deduction u/s 194J of the Act has been made in respect of five categories of medical consultants as mentioned in the table above. 4. The assessee company has obtained TAN from the TDS jurisdiction at Delhi and had been filing its TDS Returns up to FY 2009-2010 with ACIT, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Subsequently, on 05.01.2010, the assessee has obtained TAN under the TDS jurisdiction at Gurgaon and has since then has been filing its returns with ACIT (TDS), Circle, Gurgaon. Consequently for the two financial years, namely 2009-10 and 2010-11 ACIT (TDS) Circle, Gurgaon, passed a consolidated order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of Income Tax Act on 10.02.2012 treating the assessee as deemed to be assessee in default wherein raising f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r doctors with minimum guarantee. It was held that these categories of doctors were not consultants but were salaried employees of the assessee and the tax should have been deducted u/s 192 of the Act. The A. O at Delhi treated the assessee as assessee in default under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS under the head salary. 7. The order for financial year 2009-10 passed by Delhi TDS Circle was challenged before the CIT (A) who vide order dated 21.05.2013 modified the order of the A. O. to the extent that doctors with revenue sharing and minimum guarantee and senior doctors with minimum guarantee were held to be consultants whereas junior doctors with minimum guarantee were held as the salaried employees. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The revenue in the present appeal challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) for following the order of ITAT, Delhi Bench preceding F. Y. 2009-10 for deleting demand of ₹ 5, 32,54,778/-. 13. Ld. DR relied upon the order of A. O and submitted that though the issue is covered by the order of ITAT, Delhi Bench, dated 15.05.2015 for preceding Financial Year 2009-10 but the departmental appeal is pending before Hon ble High Court. 14. The Assessee had been informed the date of hearing through registered post, however, none appeared on behalf of assessee. 15. After considering the submissions of Ld. DR, in the light of findings recorded by CIT(A), we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. It is admitted fact that identica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
