https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438398 The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. It concluded that the assessee was not an 'assessee in default' under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the relationship between the assessee-deductor, a multispecialty hospital, and the consultant doctors did not constitute an employer-employee relationship, as the doctors were independent professionals. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that payments for AMC of medical equipment were not fees for technical services but were correctly categorized under section 194C as works contracts. The decision was rendered on 12th April 2023 in Chennai. en-us Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438398 The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. It concluded that the assessee was not an 'assessee in default' under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the relationship between the assessee-deductor, a multispecialty hospital, and the consultant doctors did not constitute an employer-employee relationship, as the doctors were independent professionals. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that payments for AMC of medical equipment were not fees for technical services but were correctly categorized under section 194C as works contracts. The decision was rendered on 12th April 2023 in Chennai. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438398