Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Understanding Health Insurance Deductions : Insights from Clause 126 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 80D of the Income Tax Act, 1961

      15 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 126 Deduction in respect of health insurance premia.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      The Income Tax Bill, 2025, introduces Clause 126, which seeks to provide deductions in respect of health insurance premia. This clause is significant as it aims to offer tax relief to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) who incur expenses on health insurance and medical expenditures. This commentary will provide a detailed analysis of Clause 126, comparing and contrasting it with the existing Section 80D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The analysis will cover the legislative intent, detailed breakdown of provisions, practical implications, and a comparative analysis between the two provisions.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 126 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is to provide tax deductions to individuals and HUFs for expenses related to health insurance premiums and medical expenditures. The legislative intent is to encourage taxpayers to invest in health insurance and prioritize preventive health care. This provision aligns with the broader policy considerations of promoting health insurance coverage and reducing the financial burden of medical expenses on taxpayers.

      Section 80D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, serves a similar purpose by offering deductions for health insurance premiums paid by individuals and HUFs. The historical background of Section 80D reflects a consistent effort by the legislature to incentivize health insurance coverage and support taxpayers in managing their healthcare expenses.

      Detailed Analysis 

      Clause 126 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      General Provision

      Sub-section (1) allows an assessee, whether an individual or an HUF, to claim a deduction from their taxable income for amounts specified in subsequent sub-sections. This provision sets the groundwork for the specific deductions outlined in the following clauses, highlighting the inclusive nature of the clause by covering both individuals and HUFs.

      Deductions for Individuals

      Sub-section (2) details the deductions available to individual assessees. It allows for deductions on: - Health insurance premiums for the assessee or their family, contributions to the Central Government Health Scheme, or payments for preventive health check-ups, capped at Rs. 25,000. - Health insurance or preventive health check-up payments for the assessee's parents, also capped at Rs. 25,000. - Medical expenditure on the assessee or their family, capped at Rs. 50,000. - Medical expenditure on the assessee's parents, capped at Rs. 50,000. This sub-section emphasizes the importance of both insurance and direct medical expenditure, reflecting a comprehensive approach to healthcare costs.

      Preventive Health Check-up

      Sub-section (3) specifies that deductions for preventive health check-ups (under sub-sections 2(a) and 2(b)) are capped at Rs. 5,000 in aggregate. This provision underscores the government's emphasis on preventive healthcare, encouraging taxpayers to undergo regular health check-ups.

      Aggregate Limit

      Sub-section (4) imposes an aggregate limit of Rs. 50,000 on the deductions under sub-sections 2(a) and 2(c), or 2(b) and 2(d). This cap ensures that the deductions remain within a reasonable range, balancing the need for financial relief with fiscal responsibility.

      Deductions for HUFs

      Sub-section (5) outlines the deductions available to HUFs, allowing for deductions on: - Health insurance premiums for any family member, capped at Rs. 25,000. - Medical expenditure for any family member, capped at Rs. 50,000. This provision ensures that HUFs, which often have multiple dependents, are also able to benefit from tax relief on healthcare expenses.

      Aggregate Limit for HUFs

      Sub-section (6) imposes an aggregate limit of Rs. 50,000 on deductions for HUFs, similar to the provision for individuals. This maintains consistency and ensures equitable treatment across different taxpayer categories.

      Deduction for Senior Citizens

      Sub-section (7) allows deductions for medical expenditure on senior citizens if no health insurance premium has been paid for them. This provision recognizes the higher medical costs associated with aging and provides additional relief for senior citizens.

      Enhanced Deduction for Senior Citizens 

      Sub-section (8) provides an enhanced deduction limit of Rs. 50,000 for senior citizens, replacing the standard Rs. 25,000 limit. It also allows for deductions on lump-sum payments spread over multiple tax years. This provision acknowledges the increased healthcare needs of senior citizens and offers flexibility in managing insurance payments.

      Mode of Payment

      Sub-section (9) specifies the modes of payment eligible for deductions. Payments for preventive health check-ups can be made in cash, while other payments must be made through non-cash modes. This provision aims to encourage transparency and accountability in financial transactions.

      Definitions

      Sub-section (10) provides definitions for terms such as "appropriate fraction," "family," and "relevant tax year." These definitions ensure clarity and precision in the application of the clause.

      Insurance Schemes 

      Sub-section (11) specifies that eligible health insurance must be provided by the General Insurance Corporation of India or other insurers approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. This ensures that the insurance schemes meet regulatory standards and provide adequate coverage.

      Practical Implications

      Clause 126 has significant implications for various stakeholders:

      - Individuals and HUFs: The clause provides substantial tax relief, encouraging investment in health insurance and preventive healthcare. It also offers flexibility in managing healthcare costs, particularly for senior citizens.

      - Insurance Providers: The clause may lead to increased demand for health insurance products, prompting insurers to offer more competitive and comprehensive plans.

      - Government: By promoting health insurance and preventive healthcare, the clause aligns with broader public health objectives, potentially reducing the burden on public healthcare systems.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 80D

      Clause 126 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 80D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, share similar objectives but exhibit differences in their provisions. Both provisions offer deductions for health insurance premiums and medical expenses, but Clause 126 introduces some enhancements and clarifications.

      Aggregate Deduction Limits  - Both Clause 126 and Section 80D set an aggregate deduction limit of twenty-five thousand rupees for health insurance premiums and preventive health check-ups. However, Clause 126 explicitly allows additional deductions for medical expenses up to fifty thousand rupees, which is a significant enhancement.

      Senior Citizen Provisions - Both provisions offer enhanced deductions for senior citizens, increasing the limit from twenty-five thousand to fifty thousand rupees. Clause 126 further clarifies the treatment of lump sum payments for health insurance covering multiple years, providing a more detailed framework for such deductions.

      Preventive Health Check-ups - Clause 126 and Section 80D both allow deductions for preventive health check-ups, capped at five thousand rupees. This reflects a consistent policy approach to promoting preventive healthcare practices.

      Mode of Payment - Both provisions mandate non-cash payments for most deductions, allowing cash payments only for preventive health check-ups. This ensures transparency and traceability of transactions.

      Definitions and Clarifications - Clause 126 provides detailed definitions for terms such as "appropriate fraction," "family," and "relevant tax year." These clarifications enhance the understanding and application of the provision, reducing potential ambiguities in interpretation.

      Conclusion

      Clause 126 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 80D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both aim to provide tax relief for health insurance premiums and medical expenses. Clause 126 introduces enhancements and clarifications that align with contemporary policy goals of promoting health insurance coverage and preventive healthcare. The provision supports senior citizens and encourages taxpayers to prioritize healthcare. Future reforms could focus on further expanding deduction limits and simplifying compliance requirements to enhance the effectiveness of these provisions.


      Full Text:

      Clause 126 Deduction in respect of health insurance premia.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax