https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273318 Retainership payments to doctors were treated as professional fees because the agreements showed a fixed-term consultancy on retainership basis, monthly professional billing, and no employment-linked benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, or leave. The reporting, confidentiality, exclusivity, and discipline clauses were held consistent with a professional engagement and not conclusive of a master-servant relationship. Applying the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for service, the doctors were found to be independent professionals, so tax was deductible under section 194J and not section 192. As the salary-deduction basis failed, the assessee could not be treated as in default for not deducting tax under section 192. en-us Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jun 2018 11:06:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273318 Retainership payments to doctors were treated as professional fees because the agreements showed a fixed-term consultancy on retainership basis, monthly professional billing, and no employment-linked benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, or leave. The reporting, confidentiality, exclusivity, and discipline clauses were held consistent with a professional engagement and not conclusive of a master-servant relationship. Applying the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for service, the doctors were found to be independent professionals, so tax was deductible under section 194J and not section 192. As the salary-deduction basis failed, the assessee could not be treated as in default for not deducting tax under section 192. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273318