Doctor appointed as an employee of hospital but TdS made under section 194 J

Yes... The Employer deduct TDS is correctly.
It's professional service so TDS deducted u/s 194J...

in that case in which head income tax return of a doctor will ve filed salary or 44ADA under business Head?

If a CA is employed in any company then his income come under salary head and not profession head... Just like that in all cases.... Doctor is here employed and not providing professional services

Than why Dr. TDS is made under 194 J where it is clearly mentioned that It is for Professional services .

So that he get flat 50% deduction under section 44ADA....in case of salary total amount taxable.... That's why these practices have been followed.... But if there is full time employment and employer and employee relationship exists then his income under salary only.... As court and tribunal decision also that

as I mentioned in my query the specific sentence written over there in offer letter is as under
Once offer letter is issued candidate has to sign and accept the offer and return the same to the concern as soon as possible otherwise no emplyment will be considered

https://www.ahujaandahuja.in/fees-paid-to-professionals-is-taxable-as-salary-if-required-to-follow-rules-similar-to-employees/

@ e.filer.B.com
I have one more question employer is not issuing proper Form 16 which is generally issued to the employees. we use to call it salary certificate. They Only issue Form 16 A in wich TDS made under 194 J is shown only.
Further Offer letter is issued does not contain any bond kind of language like for a fixed time this contract will exist or there is no bond period is mentioned in the offer letter.

furthermore hospital is not debiting it's profit and loss the expenses as salary it is showing the expense as professional Expenses .

Once You consider your Employer*...

 

TDS on Payments to Doctors under fixed Salary and Guarantee Money Scheme

ITO (TDS-1), Ahmedabad Vs. Apollo Hospitals International Ltd (2011-TIOL-59-ITAT-MUM)

Facts:

• The assessee engaged doctors on fixed salary and guarantee money scheme (FCG). The AO took the view that these doctors were employees of the assessee in view of the stipulation of the agreements between the assessee and the doctors
• The AO held that the assessee could have deducted TDS on the payments as per the provisions of section 192 . Accordingly,, theAO levied interest u/s 201 (1A).
• No provident fund, profession tax or ESI was deducted from payments to these consultant doctors. Whereas these deductions were made from payments made to the full time resident doctors of the assessee
• Consultant doctors were not eligible for gratuity whereas the resident doctors were eligible for the same
• These doctors filed their individual returns and paid taxes on their income from the assessee. In case of consultants where professional fees exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, accounts were subject to tax audit
• The AO held that the retainer ship agreement was for rendering services and that was in the manner of an employer/employee relationship. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee

Issue:

• Does payment to consultant doctors constitute “salary” or “payment for professional services”?

Decision

• There are two types of agreements. One of the covenant is stated to be in the nature of employer/employee agreement and the other is stated to be FGC contract. The distinction between the two inter alia include:

ü In case of the employee doctors, there is a list of allowances (basic, HRA, etc). The consultant doctors are paid a lump sum fee

ü The employee doctors‟ agreement had a clause for leave entitlement unlike the FGC contract

ü  Employee doctors are not entitled for any other full time employment

ü Consultant doctors were not employed by service rules but were expected to follow the code of conduct

• The terms and conditions in respect of the doctors under FGCs are not akin to the salaried employees. Their relationship with the hospital cannot be said to be an employer-employee relationship. Tax ought to have been deducted u/s 194J
• The contract between the two parties cannot be said to be in the nature of a “service contract ”but“ a contract for medical service”
• When there is a specific clause provided in the agreement for payment as “fee for services”, then there is no reason to read the said clause as “fees ofservices” and then there should not be any reason to treat the said payment by the assessee as payment of salary

By - TG TEAM

there is no CTC or salary structure is mentioned in offer letter

there is no such benefit doctor is getting like pf or other employee benefit

salary structure too, straight forward monthly payment after TDS only.