TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not treating the Hospital Based Consultants (HBCs) as employees and therefore holding that provisions of Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not applicable? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that payment made to employees of M/s. Sir Hurkisondas Nurrotumdas Hospital & Research Centre who had worked with the respondent for rendering various services to be treated as reimbursement and not as payment towards professionals fee requiring TDS to be deducted u/s 194J of the Act? 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that TDS on p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yee relationship between the assessee and full-time consultant doctors. The consultant doctors were given retainership-fee for the performance of duties assigned to them. Their terms of arrangement would not indicate that they were employed by the assessee hospital. It was explained that the assessee hospital engages various medical professional comprising different specialists for providing medical treatment to the patients by using the infrastructural facilities set up by the hospital. Some of these professionals were full-time employees whereas some specialist doctors were engaged as consultants to whom possessional fees was paid. The hospital would charge their patients under various heads like room charges, operation theater charges, m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 29.33 Lacs and aggregate demand of Rs. 113.14 Lacs was raised against the assessee. 4.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated that wherever doctors were employed on full time basis, tax was deducted u/s 192 whereas where doctors were not employed by the assessee, tax was deducted u/s 194J as applicable to professional payments. The attention was drawn to the fact that consultant doctors were visiting doctors and their terms of appointment were different from employee doctors. To support the same, the attention was drawn to the statement showing monthly fees paid to visiting doctors wherein it could be noted that fee paid to each doctor was different in each month. This was so because fees payable to them was linked to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consultant doctors, there was no control on the doctors as to how work assigned to them was to be carried out. They were working as independent professionals and also there was no supervision by way of instructions to tell the doctors what to do and how to do their work. 4.3 Another submission was that Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 vide ITA No.2681/Mum/2015 order dated 26/08/2016 allowed similar issue in assessee's favor relying mainly on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Grant Medical Foundation (ITA No.140 of 2013 dated 22/01/2015). 4.4 The Ld. CIT(A), in the light of assessee's submissions, concurred that the issue stood covered in assessee's favor by the decision of Tribunal in AY 2008-09 w....