Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the doctors engaged by the hospital were employees or independent consultants for the purpose of tax deduction at source, and whether the payments made to them were liable to deduction under section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 instead of section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The engagement letters provided for exclusive service to the hospital, fixed monthly remuneration, adherence to hospital rules and service conditions, probation, termination terms, retirement age, and binding service regulations. The monthly payment was not linked to the number of patients treated or professional fees collected from patients. The form and substance of the arrangement showed that the doctors were subject to the hospital's control and discipline and that the real intention of the parties was to create a contract of employment rather than a mere consultancy arrangement. The character of the payment and the relationship was determined from the terms of engagement and the surrounding service conditions, not from the labels used by the parties.
Conclusion: The doctors were employees of the hospital, the payments constituted salary, and tax was deductible under section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The hospital was therefore liable as an assessee in default for short deduction.