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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
    The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
    A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
    The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
    The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
    The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
    The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.

    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