https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445504 Payments to doctors engaged under retainership and consultancy agreements were treated as professional fees because the arrangements reflected a contract for service rather than a contract of service. The engagement terms did not create a master-servant or employer-employee relationship, and the doctors were engaged on distinct terms from salaried staff. On that basis, tax deduction under section 194J applied and section 192 did not apply. The assessee therefore could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201 on the footing that salary tax should have been deducted. en-us Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Nov 2023 12:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445504 Payments to doctors engaged under retainership and consultancy agreements were treated as professional fees because the arrangements reflected a contract for service rather than a contract of service. The engagement terms did not create a master-servant or employer-employee relationship, and the doctors were engaged on distinct terms from salaried staff. On that basis, tax deduction under section 194J applied and section 192 did not apply. The assessee therefore could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201 on the footing that salary tax should have been deducted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445504