TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Rules in Favor of Assessee on Hospital Exemption in Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Nehru Prasutika Aspatal Samiti Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax</h3> The court ruled in favor of the assessee in a case concerning the interpretation of Section 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding exemption ... Eligilbility for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) - Held that:- In order to fall within sub clause (iiiae), the income must be received by any person on behalf of any hospital or other institution which exists solely for philanthropic purposes and not for the purpose of profit - The sub clause specifically refers to reception and treatment of persons during convalescence; or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation - The expression 'medical attention' cannot be read to be confined to medical treatment of persons who are only suffering from an illness or a mental disability - The expression 'illness' has not been statutorily defined for the purpose of sub clause and must receive its ordinary and natural meaning - A hospital which provides for maternity care will fulfill the description of a hospital for the reception and treatment of persons requiring medical attention - Sub clause (iiiae) must receive its plain and ordinary meaning. Both the views of the CIT (A) and of the Tribunal are not sustainable with reference to the provisions of sub clause (iiiae) of clause (23C) of Section 10 - It is a matter of common experience that a hospital providing for maternity care has to deal with emergencies and on occasion, such hospitals have to provide emergent care which is often necessary to save the lives of the mother and the child - As modern science, technology and knowledge have advanced, there is a considerable reduction of maternal mortality due to availability of expert medical care - These aspects have not been gone into either by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) or by the Tribunal - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication. Issues:Interpretation of Section 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding exemption for hospitals or institutions providing treatment, specifically in the context of a maternity hospital.Analysis:1. Issue: Interpretation of Section 10(23C)(iiiae)The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides for exemption for hospitals or institutions catering to specific medical needs. The clause specifies that the institution must exist solely for philanthropic purposes and not for profit, with the aggregate annual receipts meeting prescribed limits.2. Analysis of Sub clause (iiiae) RequirementsSub clause (iiiae) outlines the criteria for hospitals or institutions to qualify for exemption. It includes the reception and treatment of individuals suffering from illness, mental defectiveness, convalescence, or requiring medical attention or rehabilitation. The clause emphasizes philanthropic purposes and limits on annual receipts.3. Interpretation of 'Medical Attention'The court delves into the interpretation of 'medical attention' under sub clause (iiiae). It clarifies that this term is not restricted to treating only illnesses or mental disabilities. The ordinary meaning of 'medical attention' encompasses various medical needs, including maternity care.4. Tribunal's View on Child BirthThe Tribunal's perspective on child birth as a natural process and act of God is scrutinized. The court disagrees with the Tribunal's assessment that patients choose maternity hospitals solely to alleviate labor pains, highlighting the critical role of modern medical care in reducing maternal mortality rates.5. Decision and Restoration of ProceedingsThe court concludes that both the Tribunal's and CIT (A)'s interpretations are not sustainable under sub clause (iiiae). However, since the aspects of philanthropic purposes and annual receipts were not adequately addressed in the previous assessments, the case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration.6. Final VerdictThe substantial question of law is answered in the negative, favoring the assessee. The appeal is disposed of without costs, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the hospital's operations in alignment with the provisions of Section 10(23C)(iiiae) for future assessment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
