JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. C. Dharmadhikari J.-This appeal under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the IT Act"), is directed against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench "A", Pune (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), dated April 20, 2012. assessment year is 2008-09. Tribunal had before it appeal, bearing I. T. A. No. 884/PN/2010 which was filed by respondent-assessee and I. T. A. No. 985/PN/2010 which was by Revenue. assessee's appeal was restricted to confirmation by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune, of deduction of tax under section 201(1) amounting to Rs. 80,81,586 and consequent interest thereon under section 201(1A) amounting to Rs. 16,73,630 in respect of doctors drawing fixed plus variable pay with written contract treating them as employees of hospital. second ground raised by assessee was whether Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in partially confirming short deduction of tax (TDS) under section 201(1) amounting to Rs. 1,14,897 and consequent interest of Rs. 23,489 thereon under section 201(1A) in respect of laboratory fees paid. impugned order proceeds to partly allow assessee's appeal and release assessee from paying interest in terms of direction of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Revenue's appeal has been dismissed. Revenue had raised three grounds and, namely, that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in coming to conclusion that payments made by assessee-hospital to category of doctors drawing only variable pay with written agreements were not in nature of salary and, hence, not liable for deduction of tax under section 192 of Incometax Act. second ground of challenge was that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should not have arrived at conclusion that payments made by assessee-hospital to category of doctors drawing only variable pay without written agreements and these were treated as not in nature of salary, hence, not liable for deduction of tax under section 192 of Income-tax Act. last ground was that payment made by hospital towards annual maintenance contract on plant and machinery were not in nature of fees for rendering technical services and, therefore, tax deductible at source on these payments were covered under section 194C and not under section 194J of Income-tax Act. In this appeal, we are only concerned with set of doctors who are drawing variable pay with written agreements or without written agreements. We are of view that appeal arising out of findings and conclusions of Tribunal raises substantial question of law. appeal is, therefore, admitted on following two substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is justified in setting aside order passed against assessee under section 201 and section 201(1A) of Income-tax Act? (b) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was correct in holding that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between assessee and consultant doctors employed in hospital?" With consent of learned counsel appearing for both sides, we dispose of this appeal finally by present order. brief facts necessary for answering substantial questions of law are that respondent-assessee is public charitable trust. It is administering and managing hospital in city of Pune known as Ruby Hall Clinic. assessee made deduction of tax at source under section 194J of Income-tax Act at 10 per cent. on remuneration paid to doctors employed in hospital drawing only variable pay with written contract, doctors drawing fixed plus variable pay with written contract by treating same as fee for professional services. Assessing Officer passed order on June 29, 2009, on scrutiny and verification of contracts, terms and conditions thereof that payments to these doctors were in nature of salary, tax should have been deducted under section 192 of Income-tax Act. Assessing Officer, therefore, held that assessee is in default for short deduction of tax on this count and liability for short deduction along with interest under section 201(1A) of Income-tax Act was worked out at Rs. 5,82,65,575. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/first appellate authority. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed order on March 15, 2010, partly allowing appeal of assessee. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that in respect of doctors employed in hospital drawing only variable pay with written contract, it cannot be said that they were employees of hospital and remuneration received by them was of nature of salary. In respect of doctors drawing only variable pay without written contract, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that in absence of attributes of employee doctors of this description were not employees of hospital. In respect of doctors drawing fixed plus variable pay with written contract, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that doctors under this category satisfied ten out of fourteen criteria that has been applied by courts to determine whether person was employee of another. It is in these circumstances that cross-appeals were preferred before Tribunal and Tribunal by impugned order allowed assessee's appeal partly and dismissed that of Revenue. It is aggrieved by such order that this appeal is filed. Mr. Vimal Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Revenue in support of this appeal, would submit that entire foundation on which Tribunal proceeded is erroneous in law. Inviting our attention to sections 16 and 17 of Income-tax Act together with section 192 thereof, Mr. Gupta would submit that term "salary" has been defined in Income-tax Act in inclusive manner. That term does not necessarily postulate existence of employer-employee or master-servant relationship. That also includes fees and which have been paid for services, namely, professional. In that regard, he invites our attention to section 17(1)(iv) of Income-tax Act. He, therefore, submits that basis on which Tribunal proceeded and equally Commissioner is erroneous in law. obligation to deduct tax at source arises not only in terms of such relationship but otherwise as well. In that regard, Mr. Gupta sought to draw difference between services which are performed and rendered by judges of hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. Even they are paid salaries and in terms of constitutional provisions and under Parliamentary statute payments made to judges were held to be taxable under head "Salary". In that regard, reliance is placed upon judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwala v. Union of India reported in [1999] 237 ITR 872 (SC). Mr. Gupta complained that Tribunal has not discussed any of these facts or issues in detail. Tribunal has merely relied upon some co-ordinate Bench decisions. However, parity or similarity in facts and circumstances emerging from record of both appeals in which decisions have been rendered by co-ordinate Bench and present appeal has not been established. Tribunal lost sight of fact that in recent judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of Income- tax Appellate Tribunal in case of Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (TDS) [2014] 147 ITD 41 (Jaipur); taxmann.com 200 (Jaipur- Trib) on difference of opinion between Members, Tribunal considers all orders and earlier views rendered by it. That decision also refers to some decisions of other High Courts. In these circumstances, Mr. Gupta would submit that Assessing Officer was right in conclusion that he reached. Assessing Officer has categorised doctors and has found that assessee went to extent of urging that there is no employer-employee relationship when doctors were paid fixed remuneration. assessee then accepted mistake and agreed to make good short deduction. In relation to doctors drawing fixed plus variable pay with written contract Assessing Officer referred to contracts and terms and conditions of two doctors, one working as director of neuro trauma unit. terms and conditions reveal that this doctor was required to spend fixed amount of time in hospital. He was to perform teaching duties and guide post- graduate students and observers for training. He was also to be at premises for fixed hours. Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded that working hours of consultants are fixed. They are remunerated on monthly basis. There is clause in agreement which binds them and regarding prescribed number of private patients to be admitted. There is clause about applicability of hospital rules. There is clause prohibiting outer limit on medical facilities. clause of confidentiality, rendering decision of hospital management in case of any dispute final and reviewing of performance periodically would reveal that this category of doctors receive salary and, therefore, would be governed by provisions of section 192 of Income-tax Act. In third category of doctors as well Assessing Officer found from explanation given by controller of accounts of assessee in writing that Dr. Sumit Basu who was appointed as consultant radiation oncologist, was bound by term, namely, minimum income of Rs. 10,000 per month in form of professional fee/referral fee inclusive of OPD and IPD visits and consultation. Assessing Officer concluded that he is full time employee of hospital. assessee exercised strict control over doctors and, hence, in relation to them as well assessee is in default. With regard to last category of doctors questions posed to assessee were not answered satisfactorily. In these circumstances, though assertion was that there was no employer-employee relationship that could not be proved by assessee. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal does not discuss all these aspects but merely follow some co-ordinate Bench decisions. In these circumstances, if this court is not inclined to allow Revenue's appeal in its entirety, it should be allowed by directing remand of case to Tribunal for fresh decision in terms of above facts and law. Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of assessee, would submit that there is no merit in any of contentions of Shri Gupta. He submits that findings of fact which are rendered concurrently by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse. They are consistent with factual materials placed on record. findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are so vitiated or found to be palpably erroneous and on face of record. In other words, findings of fact would bind this court. They would have to be demonstrated to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on face of record. Such is not situation inasmuch as Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal referred to all categories of doctors and professionals. If reputed hospital in city of Pune invites certain professionals for their expertise, experience and skill in profession and requests them to be associated with hospital, then their engagement cannot be seen as master-servant or employer-employee relationship. Tribunal has found that categories of doctors dealt with are not employees of hospital. Such doctors are free to carry on their private practice either in hospital premises or elsewhere. There is no prohibition or bar when they being associated with other hospitals. There is also no restriction on nature of work that they perform and carry out in hospital. hospital does not in that sense exercise disciplinary control. hospital executes contract with them and which is capable of being terminated by either parties. contractual stipulations, therefore, have to be read as whole and together to arrive at conclusion as to whether it denotes master- servant or employer-employee relationship. Precisely that has been done in given facts by Tribunal and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both have referred to relevant and germane tests and decisions in field. They have also adverted to rival contentions. They have found that fixed pay doctors can easily fit into relation so envisaged by legal provisions. It is erroneous to assume that test of master-servant or employeremployee relationship cannot be invoked and applied. moment Assessing Officer called upon assessee to deduct sums from amounts payable to categories of doctors who were working either on written contract or without but drawing fixed and/or only variable pay indicates that he had in mind nothing but employer-employee or masterand servant relationship. That test has not been satisfied as held by Tribunal. In circumstances, any decisions on which reliance is placed by Revenue are of no assistance. They are rendered in cases of those doctors to whom fixed amount was paid per month. They were also entitled to several other facilities which employee would be receiving and entitled to. For all these reasons, he submits that appeal be dismissed. Then reliance is placed by Mr. Bajpai on decisions which have been rendered by High Court of Gujarat in case of CIT (TDS) v. Apollo Hospitals International Ltd. [2013] 359 ITR 78 (Guj). He also relies upon several decisions and rendered by Tribunals. They are, inter alia, Asst. CIT v. Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre reported in [2014] 33 ITR (Trib) 72 (Hyd) and Deputy CIT v. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital reported in [2011] 44 SOT 87 (Hyd) (URO) and decision which has also been rendered by High Court and in case of CIT (TDS) v. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital [2014] 365 ITR 356 (AP). For principle that law makes distinction between contract of service and contract for service, reliance is placed by counsel on Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shanta reported in [1996] AIR 1996 SC 550. With assistance of counsel appearing for parties, we have perused appeal paper book together and all orders which are part thereof. Income-tax Officer (TDS) 1, Pune, had before him issue, namely, verification of certain discrepancies in deduction of tax at source under various provisions of Income-tax Act. He issued showcause notice on December 29, 2008, in response to which Shri Sohrab Mehta, controller of accounts, appeared before him from time to time, filed replies and raised various contentions. Assessing Officer referred to section 192 and section 17 of Income-tax Act and then judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of CIT v. Dr. Mrs. Usha Verma [2002] 254 ITR 404 (P & H); [2002] 120 Taxman 738 (P&H) and decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 1 (SC) and, firstly, concluded that doctors drawing fixed remuneration are nothing but employees and they cannot be but held to be servants or employees only. Therefore, short deduction and which has been admitted in their case must be made good. We are not concerned with this category of doctors as conceded position records. We are concerned herewith doctors drawing fixed plus variable pay with written contract. They are categorised at paragraph 3B(2). In relation to them Assessing Officer concluded that trust is exercising strict control over these doctors' timings, do-or-do nots, number of private patients to be admitted, teaching post-graduate students, etc., which reveals degree of supervision. That is held to be absolute. If there is control only then work of these doctors can be reviewed. Therefore, this contract was determined by Assessing Officer as one of service. existence of employer-employee relationship was held to be proved. Therefore, assessee should have deducted tax at source from payments to them at rate applicable. In arriving at this conclusion, he relied on letters dated November 25, 2008, and May 14, 2009, wherein assessee accepted that payments to doctors drawing fixed plus variable remuneration are in nature of salary. In relation to doctors drawing only variable pay with written contract categorised as paragraph 3B(3) terms and conditions of contract with two doctors, Dr. Sumit Basu and Dr. Manoj Durairaj, have been referred. Assessing Officer concluded that Dr. Sumit Basu is full time employee of hospital. hospital exercises control over him and various clauses and terms in contract have been referred to. It was concluded that there is no difference between doctors drawing fixed plus variable remuneration and doctors drawing variable pay only. In this category as well, findings are rendered by Assessing Officer against assessee treating it to be in default. In relation to fourth and last category of doctors drawing variable pay without written contract questions in questionnaire that have been referred and answers thereto imply admission stated to have been given by Mr. Pervez Grant, managing trustee of assessee. From this control and supervision was inferred. Even if there is no written contract, Assessing Officer concluded that relationship is that of employer and employee and assessee is in default. It is aggrieved by such findings that assessee approached Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and first appellate authority had before it all grounds. They have been extensively referred together with submissions and findings of Assessing Officer. first appellate authority carefully considered facts, detailed order of Assessing Officer, oral and written arguments and then referred to relevant tests including emerging from famous decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra reported in [1957] AIR 1957 SC 264. first appellate authority from paragraph 9 onwards dealt with category of doctors and summarised by Assessing Officer. From paragraph 13, first appellate authority dealt with doctors drawing fixed plus variable pay with written contracts and concluded that out of fourteen tests, answers which have been given by assessee and based on records, would reveal that two doctors whose contracts were scrutinised and verified by Assessing Officer were not entitled to provident fund or any terminal benefit. Both were free to carry on their private practice outside hospital and both doctors treated their private patients from hospital premises, all of which could be seen as indicators that they were not employees but independent professionals. However, despite above position, first appellate authority concluded that they shared lot of attributes of employees, their appointments were in response to their applications, both were receiving fixed remuneration, fixed hours of work and which were regular and substantial, application of leave rules, period of contract and one of doctors being expressly barred from working with any other hospital. In circumstances, he agreed with Assessing Officer as regards this category of doctors. With regard to doctors drawing only variable pay with written contract their cases were dealt with from paragraph 16 and first appellate authority concluded that Assessing Officer is not right in holding that these categories of doctors and whose cases were noted by Assessing Officer are employees of hospital nor were they receiving remuneration which could be termed as salary. With regard to last category of doctors drawing only variable pay without any written contract, first appellate authority agreed with assessee and concluded that even they are not employees of hospital. However, there was finding against assessee on point of interest and deduction of tax from annual maintenance contract, TDS on laboratory fee paid. Tribunal had before it appeal of assessee and Revenue and it noted rival contentions after referring to facts from paragraphs 4 to 8. After noting rival contentions and relevant case law, Tribunal concluded that common legal sense reveals that expression "professional fee" means payment of service rendered by person in course of carrying on legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession or profession of accountancy or technical nature. If there is no employer-employee relationship, as none of doctors are entitled to regular benefits but discharging only professional services, Tribunal relied upon its co-ordinate Bench decision and nothing contrary being brought to its notice, concluded that ratio therein would squarely apply. Tribunal termed categories of doctors with contracts but drawing fixed remuneration and variable pay or drawing only variable pay as visiting doctors. They are treated on par with independent professionals rendering medical services. In these circumstances, Tribunal did not uphold findings of Commissioner and in relation to set of doctors who were drawing fixed remuneration plus variable pay and confirmed his findings in category of doctors with variable pay with written contracts and without written contracts. In recent decision which has been delivered by hon'ble Supreme Court in Employees' State Insurance Corporation-cum-Medical Officers Association v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation [2014] AIR 2014 SC 1259, in context of question whether medical doctors discharging functions of medical officers treating patients in Employees' State Insurance Corporation dispensary/hospital are workmen within meaning of section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, court held as under: "We are of view that medical professional treating patients and diagnosing diseases cannot be held to be a'workmen' within meaning of section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Doctors' profession is noble profession and is mainly dedicated to serve society, which demands professionalism and accountability. Distinction between occupation and profession is of paramount importance. occupation is principal activity related to job, work or calling that earns regular wages for person and profession, on other hand, requires extensive training, study and mastery of subject, whether it is teaching students, providing legal advice or treating patients or diagnosing diseases. Persons performing such functions cannot be seen as workman within meaning of section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. We are of view that principle laid down by this court in A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa [1988] 4 SCC 42 and in Muir Mills Unit of NTC (UP) Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava [2007] 1 SCC 491 squarely applies to such professionals. That being factual and legal position, we find no reasons to interfere with judgment of High Court. special leave petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly." This decision is relevant only for purpose of noting as to how doctors' role is perceived and it is considered as noble profession mainly dedicated to serve society which demands professionalism and accountability. distinction between occupation and profession and which is of paramount importance has been noted. In case of Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha reported in [1996] 86 Comp Cas 806 (SC); AIR 1996 SC 550 what was adjudicated by court is why doctors and medical professionals were brought within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and in relation to services rendered by them. argument was that Consumer Protection Act defines term "service" in section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. doctor- patient relationship is of mutual trust and confidence. doctor cannot be said to be servant of patient. Neither patient can be termed as his master. This peculiar relationship would, therefore, enable association to contend that Parliament never intended to bring such professionals and doctors who work for welfare and well being of patients by treating them as servants of anybody. In fact, constitutional validity of Act and in backdrop of this peculiar provision was issue before hon'ble Supreme Court. Going by peculiar definition and consequences which would follow if acts of negligence and attributable to doctors and medical professionals are not brought within purview of Act that hon'ble Supreme Court upheld its validity and negatived challenge. In doing that hon'ble Supreme Court referred to well settled tests which could enable court to distinguish between contract of service (a master servant relationship) and contract for service being services rendered as professional. In that context, paragraphs 41 and 42 of decision read as under (page 829 of 86 Comp Cas): "41. Shri Salve has urged that relationship between medical practitioner and patient is of trust and confidence and, therefore, it is in nature of contract of personal service and service rendered by medical practitioner to patient is not'service' under section 2(1)(o) of Act. This contention of Shri Salve ignores well recognised distinction between a'contract of service' and a'contract for services' (See Halsbury's Laws of England, fourth edition, volume 16, paragraph 501; Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd v. State of Saurashtra [1957] SCR 152 at page 157). A'contract for services' implies contract whereby one party undertakes to render services e.g. professional or technical services, to or for another in performance of which he is not subject to detailed direction and control but exercises professional or technical skill and uses his own knowledge and discretion (see Oxford Companion to Law, page 1134). A'contract of service' implies relationship of master and servant and involves obligation to obey orders in work to be performed and as to its mode and manner of performance (see Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, fifth edition, page 540; Simmons v. Heath Laundry Co. [1910] 1 KB 543; and Dharangadhara Chemical Works (supra) at page 159). We entertain no doubt that Parliamentary draftsman was aware of this well accepted distinction between'contract of service' and'contract for services' and has deliberately chosen expression'contract of service' instead of expression'contract for services', in exclusionary part of definition of'service' in section 2(1)(o). reason being that employer cannot be regarded as consumer in respect of services rendered by his employee in pursuance of contract of employment. By affixing adjective'personal' to word'service' nature of contracts which are excluded is not altered. said adjective only emphasises that what is sought to be excluded is personal service only. expression'contract of personal service' in exclusionary part of section 2(1)(o) must, therefore, be construed as excluding services rendered by employee to his employer under contract of personal service from ambit of expression'service'. 42. It is no doubt true that relationship between medical practitioner and patient carries within it certain degree of mutual confidence and trust and, therefore, services rendered by medical practitioner can be regarded as services of personal nature but since there is no relationship of master and servant between doctor and patient contract between medical practitioner and his patient cannot be treated as contract of personal service but is contract for services and service rendered by medical practitioner to his patient under such contract is not covered by exclusionary part of definition of'service' contained in section 2(1)(o) of Act." We are mindful of fact that these observations must be treated as confined to interpretation of provisions of distinct legislation. That legislation was perceived and noted as taking care of interest of consumers and of varied categories. It is in relation to bringing services and of all categories rendered by professionals for fee that hon'ble Supreme Court negatived challenge. However, we are in agreement with Mr. Bajpai that foundation or basis on which Revenue and Assessing Officer proceeded was whether categories of doctors and which were before Assessing Officer could be seen and termed as employee or servant of assessee. About category of doctors and who draw fixed pay without any other benefit but like ordinary employee entitled to medical and provident fund or retiremental benefits, there is no dispute. In relation to other category of doctors there was dispute. Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that though these categories of doctors had fixed remuneration and variable pay but their terms and conditions of employment or service would be crucial and material. In relation to two doctors, namely, Dr. Zirpe and Dr. Phadke, contracts were taken as sample and scrutinised minutely. Upon such scrutiny Tribunal noted that it cannot be said that these doctors were employees. If first part of Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) order indicates as to how these persons or doctors were not treated by assessee as regular employees for want of benefits like provident fund, retiremental benefit, etc., then merely because they are required to spend certain fixed time at hospital, treating fixed number of patients at hospital, attend them as out patients and indoor patients does not mean that employer-employee relationship can be culled out or inferred. We do not see how Mr. Gupta can fault such conclusions by relying upon decisions which have been rendered in cases of doctors having fixed pay and tenure. In that case, before us, there is no dispute. Even assessee accepts position that they are employees of assessee-trust. However, in cases of other doctors contract would have to be read as whole. It would have to be read in backdrop of relationship and which was of engagement for certain purpose and time. skill of doctors and their expertise were foundation on which invitation was extended to them to become part of assessee which is public charitable trust and rendering medical service. If well known doctors and in specified fields are invited to join such hospitals for fee or honorarium and there are certain terms drawn so as to understand relationship, then in every case such terms and attendant circumstances would have to be seen and in their entirety before arriving at conclusion that there exists employer-employee relationship. Tribunal found that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was in error. We also agree with Tribunal because in Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order in relation to these two doctors findings are little curious. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) referred to tests in paragraph 9 of order at running page 62 and at internal page 14 in paragraph 10 Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that doctors drawing fixed remuneration are full time employees. However, in relation to second category of doctors drawing fixed plus variable pay with written contracts terms and conditions of Dr. Zirpe and Dr. Phadke have been referred and Tribunal concluded that neither of doctors was entitled to provident fund or any terminal benefits. Both were free to carry on their private practice at their own clinic or outside hospitals but beyond hospital timings. Both doctors treated their private patients from hospital premises. All of which could be seen as indicators that they were not employees but independent professionals (see paragraph 14). However, they were found to be sharing overwhelming number of attributes of employees. In relation to that contract seems to have been bifurcated or split up or read in bits and pieces by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Leave Rules were held to be applicable in case of Dr. Phadke and there were fixed timing and fixed remuneration. Now, it is inconceivable that merely because for certain period of time or required number of hours doctors have to be at Ruby Hall Clinic means they will not be entitled to visit any other hospital or attend patients at it necessarily. anxiety appears is not to inconvenience patients visiting and seeking treatment at Ruby Hall Clinic. If specialised team of doctors, experts and experienced in field are part of assessee's clinic, then their availability at clinic has to be ensured. Now, trend is to provide all facilities under one roof so that patients are not compelled to go to several clinics or hospitals. Hence, diagnostic centre with laboratories and clinics, consultation rooms, rooms with beds for indoor treatment, critical care, treatment for kidney, lever, heart, brain, stomach ailments are facilities available at clinics and hospitals. management, therefore, insists that such facilities, which are very costly and expensive are utilised to optimum and investment of time, money and infrastructure is not wasted. Hence, fixed timings and required number of hours and such stipulations are incorporated in contracts so that they are of binding nature. doctor or expert medical practitioner is then obliged to denote his time and energy to clinic whole heartedly. If handsome remuneration, fee is prescribed in return of readymade facilities even for professionals, then such insistence is not necessarily to treat highly qualified professionals as servants. It is relationship of mutual trust and confidence for larger interest of patient being served efficiently. From this contract or any clause therein no such conclusion could have been arrived at. We do not see how there was any express bar from working at any other hospital and if contracts would have been properly and carefully scrutinised. Merely because their income from hospital is substantial does not mean that ten out of fourteen criteria evolved by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have been satisfied. Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, were in complete error. We have also perused these contracts and copies of which are annexed to paper book being part of order of Assessing Officer. We find that communications which have been relied upon, namely, November 25, 2008, and May 14, 2009, do not contain any admission by assessee. All that assessee admitted is existence of written contract and with above terms. Those terms have also been perused by us minutely and carefully. We do not find that any stipulations regarding working hours, academic leave or attachments would reveal that these doctors are employees of assessee. In fact, Dr. Zirpe was appointed as junior consultant on three years of contract. He was paid emoluments at fixed rates for patients seen by him in OPD. That he would not be permitted to engage himself in any hospital or nursing home on pay or emoluments cannot be seen as isolated term or stipulation. In case of Dr. Uday Phadke, we do not find any such stipulation. In these circumstances, only agreement between parties being that certain private patients or fixed or specified number seen by consultant could be admitted to assessee-hospital. That would not denote binding relationship or master-servant arrangement. attractive or better term to attract talented young professionals and too in competitive world would not mean tying down person or restricting his potential to one set up only. arrangement must be looked in its entirety and on touch stone of settled principles. Tribunal was right in reversing findings of Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). There was clear perversity and contradiction in findings, particularly pointed out by us hereinabove. In relation to other doctors where remuneration was variable and there was written contract or no written contract Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal did not commit any error at all. Both have referred extensively to materials on record. We are not in agreement with Mr. Gupta that Tribunal's order is in any way incomplete or sketchy or cryptic. settled principles and rendered in co-ordinate Bench decisions have been referred only to emphasise tests which have been evolved from time to time. It is only in light of such tests and their applicability to individual cases that matters of this nature must be decided. This approach of Tribunal did not require it to render elaborate or lengthy findings and when it agreed with Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We do not find even in case of Dr. Sumit Basu Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or Tribunal committed any error. Merely because of his stature he was ensured and guaranteed fixed monthly payment. That would not make him employee of hospital. This cannot be seen as stand alone term. There are other terms and conditions based on which entire relationship of consultant or professional and visiting assessee's hospital had been determined. Once again, no general rule can be laid down. Nowadays, private medical care has become imperative. Public hospitals cannot cater to increasing population. Hence, private hospitals are established and continue to be formed and set up day-by-day. quality of care, service, attention, on account of financial capacity therein has forced people of ordinary means also to visit them. Since specialists are in demand because of life style diseases that consultants and doctors prefer these hospitals. Sometimes they hop from one medical centre or clinic to another throughout day. Retaining them for fixed days and specified hours requires offering them friendly terms and conditions. In such circumstances, we do not think that Tribunal committed any error of law apparent on face of record in confirming findings rendered by first appellate authority. findings of fact from paragraph 16 onwards in Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order on ground No. 2 and from paragraph 20 onwards on ground No. 3 do not suffer from any serious legal infirmity. appreciation and appraisal of factual materials is not such as would enable us to interfere in our limited jurisdiction. Our further appellate jurisdiction is limited. As result of above discussion, we need not advert to entire case law in field. Suffice it to note that Revenue relied on judgments which were rendered in cases where terms and conditions denoting employee and employer relationship included fixed pay or monthly remuneration only. For all these reasons we are of opinion that questions of law termed as substantial and framed as above would have to be answered against Revenue and in favour of assessee. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. only argument that is seriously canvassed by Mr. Gupta is that confirmation of findings rendered by Tribunal would mean concurrence with its conclusion that professionals can never be appointed as employees or there can never be master-servant relationship. This is apprehended by Revenue because several eminent professionals are rendering full time services as medical officers, medical practitioners and teachers at civil and Government hospitals. They are also part of hospitals, privately managed or managed in public private partnership (PPP). Our findings or Tribunal's order being upheld does not mean that we have laid down any absolute rule or principle of general application. In such cases, depending upon attending facts and circumstances, terms and conditions of engagement, finding can be arrived at that there is master-servant or employer-employee relationship. It can be arrived at in cases where it is found by income-tax authorities that though there is not regular process of recruitment and appointment but contract would indicate that doctor/professional was appointed as employee and on regular basis. All such and other courses in law are always open. With this additional clarification, we dismiss this appeal. *** Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) v. Grant Medical Foundation (Ruby Hall Clinic)