2014 (6) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of convenience. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee a partnership firm, consisting of three partners, is a multi-speciality hospital engaged in providing health care services. A survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act at the assessee's premises on 8-1- 2008. In course of survey, it was found that the assessee has entered into an agreement with some Doctors and treated them as consultants. Finding that no tax was deducted u/s 192 of the Act, the assessee was treated as in default by the AO u/s 201(1) and was asked as to why the consultant should not be treated as an employee of the assessee. In reply, the assessee submitted that the hospital hires the services of the Doctors on payment basis. As per the terms of the contract, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal, we find that the grounds raised in the present appeals are squarely covered by the abovementioned order in the assessee's own case pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. While dealing with identical facts and circumstances, the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench held as follows:- "We have also carefully gone through the judgement of the apex court in the case of Ram Prashad (supra). In the case before the apex court, the assessee paid remuneration and a percentage of gross profits in addition to monthly remuneration to the managing director (MD). In those circumstances, the apex court while considering the relationship of the company and the managing director, held that the board of directors of the company are to manage the business of the c....