#Professional Fees

A senior advocate’s claim for unpaid fees against the State of Madhya Pradesh was granted, with the Delhi High Court ordering payment of Rs 78.65 million plus 24% per annum interest. The bench clarified that a writ under Article 226 can be entertained even when the underlying facts are contested, widening the avenue for fee recovery from governments. The decision benefits senior advocates and other professionals seeking redress for outstanding fees from public authorities.

The ITAT Cochin ruled that teachers paid hourly by coaching institutes without statutory benefits like PF, ESI, or appointment letters are independent professionals, not employees. This means TDS must be deducted under Section 194J for professional fees, not Section 192 for salary - a critical clarification for edtech firms and coaching centers nationwide.

The Bombay High Court holds that a co-operative bank’s dispute over professional fees paid to an empanelled valuer does not fall under Section 115’s mandatory notice requirement, as such services are ancillary to, not integral to, the society’s core business. This shields service providers from procedural hurdles in fee recovery suits, clarifying the boundary between commercial contracts and statutory governance of co-operative societies.

NCLAT rules that an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is entitled only to proportional fees for duties performed during a stay on Committee of Creditors (CoC) constitution, rejecting claims for full statutory remuneration. The ruling clarifies that fee entitlement under IBC is contingent on actual functions discharged, not mere appointment duration.

ITAT Mumbai overturns Rs.6.75 crore disallowance, ruling that professional fees paid to facilitate payments to OFAC-sanctioned entities qualify as deductible business expenditure under Section 37(1) IT Act. The tribunal emphasizes that commercial expediency, not revenue assumptions, determines allowability of such expenses.