Case Law Details
Brief facts of the case: Doctors were working in the hospital named Ruby hall clinic and were giving services in the hospital .Hospital has hired them and were paid on monthly basis for the services they render.
While making payment to doctors hospital deducts TDS @10 % U/s 194J as they consider that they are rendering services because they were having freedom to do their practice also and open their clinics. Moreover they were not binding by any contract with the hospital.
AO had put the case into scrutiny and announced the assessee as assessee in default for lower deduction of TDS taking into consideration that the doctors are employees of the hospital so the TDS should be deducted u/s 192 .So he had raised a demand for the same plus interest there on.
When aggrieved by the order of the AO, asssessee appealed with CIT (A) who set aside the order of the AO, and decide that TDS should be deducted u/s 194J.
Then aggrieved by the decision of CIT (A) ld counsel of revenue filed an appeal with ITAT who also confirmed the decision of CIT(A).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Surprised that there existed a clause in the agreement in the case under reference – whereby the doctors were bound to get the prescribed number of private patients to be admitted !