
ITAT quashed a ₹9.48 lakh tax demand against Brilliant Study Centre, ruling that attendance and working hours alone don't make teachers employees. The decision clarifies the line between administrative and employment control.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, has quashed a ₹9.48 lakh tax demand against Kerala-based Brilliant Study Centre Pvt. Ltd., ruling that requiring teachers to follow attendance and working hours does not make them employees.
The dispute began with a TDS survey under Section 133A in December 2023. The Income Tax Department found that the coaching institute had deducted tax under Section 194J, which applies to professional fees, rather than Section 192, which covers salaries. The department argued the teachers were employees because they had fixed working hours, monitored attendance, leave approval rules, a non-compete clause, and annual increments. Based on those factors, it treated the institute as an assessee in default under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), issuing the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld that view.
The tribunal overturned the lower authorities. The decisive test, the ITAT said, is not administrative control but whether the institution controls how professionals perform their work. The teachers were free to teach in their own manner, subject only to the prescribed curriculum. There were no formal appointment letters or employment contracts. The teachers were not entitled to statutory benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, ESI or leave encashment. These factors pointed to a professional engagement, not an employment relationship.
The ITAT also flagged an inconsistency in the tax department's position. The department had accepted the teachers' own income tax returns, where they reported the receipts as professional income under Section 44ADA. The tribunal said the department could not treat the same payments as salary in the payer's hands while accepting them as professional receipts in the recipients' hands.
Citing the Madras High Court's ruling in the Dr. Mathew Cherian case, the tribunal held that professionals do not become employees merely because an organisation prescribes administrative guidelines. The institute had correctly deducted TDS under Section 194J, the ITAT said, and quashed the ₹9.48 lakh demand.
The order, dated 16 June 2026, provides a precedent for other coaching institutes, edtech platforms, and companies that engage contractors under administrative oversight. The distinction between administrative control and employment control is now clearer, though the tax department could consider an appeal.
Drafted by a large language model from the source reporting linked above, then screened by automated publishing checks. It is not read by a journalist before publication. Some articles cite our Alpha Score. Verify prices and figures against the original source. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.