VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawOrders and instructions2021 › Order
Order of the Board 24 March 2021 Read in part

Approval of Maa Ram Pyari Super Speciality Hospital, Ranchi under the proviso to section 17(2)(viii)

An order issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, dated 24 March 2021. Issued under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of the proviso to clause (viii) of sub-section (2) of section 17, read with rules 3A(1) and 3A(2).

What this is

An approval granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Jharkhand, Patna to a named hospital. Clause (viii) of section 17(2) sweeps into 'perquisite' any sum paid by an employer towards an employee's medical treatment; the proviso takes such a payment out again where the treatment is at a hospital approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner for the purpose. This document is that approval, given to Maa Ram Pyari Super Speciality Hospital, Ranchi.

This is an order of the Board. An order is issued under a power the Act itself gives the Board — most often section 119, which lets it direct its own officers and, in the cases the section names, relax a requirement. Read the enabling words before deciding how far it reaches: the power is administrative, and it cannot rewrite the charge.

What it does

The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Jharkhand, Patna, having regard to the guidelines prescribed in rules 3A(1) and 3A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for the grant of approval to a hospital, grants approval to M/s Maa Ram Pyari Super Speciality Hospital, Harihar Singh Road, opposite Bariatu Petrol Pump, Morobadi, Ranchi 834008, PAN AADCR6616B, for the purposes of sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of the proviso to clause (viii) of section 17(2). The approval runs from 22.03.2021 to 21.03.2024. It is granted on the footing that the hospital continues to satisfy the requirements of rule 3A(1) and the conditions prescribed.

Why it was issued

An employer who meets an employee's medical bills creates a taxable perquisite unless the payment falls within one of the exceptions in the proviso to section 17(2)(viii). One of those exceptions depends on the hospital being approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner for the treatment of the prescribed diseases. The approval is therefore a condition precedent: without it the employee is taxed on what his employer paid. Hospitals apply, and approvals of this kind are the outcome.

Who it reaches

The approval is addressed to the hospital, and it works in the assessments of employees treated there and of employers deducting tax on salary. It binds the department to treat the hospital as approved for the stated period. It does not bind the assessee, who must still bring his case within the proviso, and it does not bind the Tribunal or a court.

From when

Approval effective from 22.03.2021 and valid up to 21.03.2024, on a letter dated 24.03.2021.

What to watch

The approval is time-bound and condition-bound. Check that the treatment falls inside the window and that the hospital was still meeting rule 3A(1), since an approval can be withdrawn. Remember also that approval of the hospital is only one of the conditions in the proviso: the disease and the documentation have to answer the requirement as well before the payment escapes the perquisite charge.

The Board’s own words

One sentence from the document itself, reproduced as the Board wrote it. Everything else on this page is our writing about it.

having regard to the guidelines prescribed in rule 3A(1) & 3A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for the grant of approval to a hospital, hereby grant approval to M/s Maa Ram Pyari Super Speciality Hospital

— the Central Board of Direct Taxes, order, 24 March 2021. Read it in the department’s own PDF.

The provisions it turns on

The sections are the ones the document itself works on. Which section of the Income-tax Act, 2025 covers the same ground is the department’s own concordance and not our reading of it.
Under the Income-tax Act, 1961Now, in the Income-tax Act, 2025
section 17section 16, section 17, section 18

Cases in this library on the same provision

These decisions turn on the same provision of the 1961 Act that this document works on. They are about the provision, not about this document: none of them is authority on what the Board meant, and a court is in any event free to read the section for itself.

What here is the Board’s and what is ours. The document is the Central Board of Direct Taxes’ own. Its date and the words quoted above are reproduced from the Board’s own PDF, which is here. Everything else on this page is ours: the plain-English account of what the document is and what it does, the reading of which provision it turns on, the note on what to watch, and the choice of cases. Where our account and the document part, the document governs.

An order of the Board binds the department, not you and not a court. The Board writes to its own officers. An assessee may hold the department to an order or an instruction that helps him; the department cannot hold an assessee to one that hurts him, and the Tribunal and the courts decide the law for themselves. This is the most common mistake made with this material, and it is worth making twice: a direction of the Board is not a section of the Act.

We did not read all of it. The department’s file returned only part of this document to us, so what is written above is written from the part we could read. Open the PDF before you rely on it.

What we could not settle. The DIN and file number in the header extract as garbled characters and are left blank. The full wording of the conditions attached to the approval could not be transcribed from the scan.