9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to carry on private practice but the Government set up paying clinics, the income of which was to be shared by the concerned doctor and the Government. In this year the assessee had earned a sum of Rs. 16,870 from the paying clinic and his claim before the ITO was that this income from the paying clinic should be treated as income from profession. Against the aforesaid income from profession the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 4,755. The ITO did not accept the assessee's submission and held that the income of Rs. 16,870 earned from the paying clinic was income from salary. He, therefore, brought to tax the entire sum of Rs. 16,870 without allowing the expenditure of Rs. 4,755 claimed by the assessee. In holding that the income from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to professional societies etc. 4. I have heard the ld. Representatives of both the parties. The question whether the income from the paying clinic should be taxed as income from salary or as income from profession, has already been decided by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. C. Parkash referred to above and following that order I would hold that the AAC was justified in directing the ITO to tax the income from the paying clinic as income from profits and gains of profession. It may be incidentally mentioned that I was a party to that order. While holding that the income from the paying clinic was income from salary, the ITO had relied on the judgment in Gestetner Duplicators Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, West Bengal (1979) 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the expression salary as defined in r. 2(h) of part A of Schedule IV to the Act and the proportionate contributions as pertaining to the commission paid by the appellant to its salesmen were deductible u/s 36(1)(iv). On a reference, the High Court held that the proportionate contribution pertaining to the commission was not an allowable deduction under s. 36(1)(iv). From the facts of this case it would be noticed that it has no relevancy to the facts of the present case. In that case a limited question decided was whether the commission at fixed percentages of the turnover paid to each salesman was to be treated as a part of salary for the purpose of considering the deduction of the employer's contribution under s. 36(1)(iv). In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome from the paying clinic the assessee has to incur such an expenditure on telephone. The assessee has only claimed 50 per cent of the annual rent and this expenditure cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable. The second amount is the sum of Rs. 3,000 which has been claimed on the maintenance of a car. The ITO himself had held that a sum of Rs. 2,500 should be reasonably attributed to the earning of income from paying clinic. The AAC has allowed a sum of Rs. 3,000 which was claimed by the assessee and this claim also is reasonable. The third amount is the sum of Rs. 600 which has been claimed for a personal part time orderly for attending telephones, etc. The allowance of this claim is also in order. The fourth item is a sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
