No deduction on hearing aid

Q.  I am a senior citizen of 82 years. Please let me know whether the cost of new hearing aid and cells can be claimed under Section 80D of the Act where facility of Rs 30,000 as medical expenses for financial year 2017-18 is admissible whereas deduction of Rs 1,25,000 is allowed under Section 80U on the basis of disability certificate. — Bindya Devi

A.  Section 80D of the Act allows deduction from total income in respect of the amount paid on account of medical expenditure incurred on the health of the assessee. Such deduction is allowable to a very senior citizen to the extent of Rs 30,000 for the assessment year 2017-18. The medical expenditure, in my opinion, would not include the cost of hearing aid and battery cells as it cannot be considered as a “medical expenditure incurred on the health of the assessee” for which deduction is allowable under Section 80D of the Act.

Q. I am working in a PSU. My annual income is Rs 5,50,000. My deductions are as under:

NPS — Rs 24,000 (salary deduction)+ Rs 24,000 (Contribution by Department) = Rs 48,000

LIC  — Rs 36,000

PPF  — Rs 80,000

Total investment: Rs 1,64,000

My query is how much deduction I can claim in my income tax return — Rs 1,50,000 or Rs 2,00,000, as I am investing in NPS. — Sorbh Gupta

A.  You can claim a deduction of Rs 2,00,000 from your total income provided the additional amount of Rs 50,000 has been deposited under National Pension Scheme notified under Section 80CCD(1B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act).

Q.  I am a Punjab Government pensioner and senior citizen. I have spent Rs 90,000 during the financial year 2017-18 on my outdoor treatment on the basis of prescriptions of an oncologist in Max Super Specialty Hospital, Mohali, as I have been suffering from malignant cancer (C-Rectum). I received only Rs 51,600 as reimbursement from Punjab Govt. during the financial year 2017-18. Kindly clarify whether any deduction from my total income is allowed in respect of medical treatment under Section 80 DDB since I received only Rs 51,600 out of Rs 90,000 spent on my treatment. — Harbhajan Singh

A.  You should be able to claim deduction of Rs 38,400 (90,000–51, 600 =38,400) from your total income being the net amount paid for treatment of malignant cancer. This deduction is subject to the provision that a prescription for such medical treatment from an oncologist has been obtained.

Q.  You have advised in this column in The Tribune dated 28.3.2018 that only resident Indian can open a PPF account and he has to close the account as soon as he becomes an NRI. It appears that this advice is based on GOI notification number GSR1237/E dt. 3.10.2017. The GOI vide notification number 01.10.2016 NS  dated 23.2.2018 has ordered to keep notification dated 03.10.2017 in abeyance till further orders.  It thus follows that position prior to 03.10.2017 will prevail and Resident Indian can continue his PPF account in operation even on becoming an NRI up to 15 years.  But he cannot extend it further. Please clarify. — RL Sharma

A.  The amendment made in 2017 with regard to the closure of Public Provident Fund account of NRI is a part of law till today. Therefore, until and unless the law is amended, a memorandum by Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Budget Division) wherein it has been pointed out that “the notification dated 2nd October, 2017 has been kept in abeyance till further order in this regard”, cannot override the provisions of the scheme. The provisions of the scheme have to be amended so as to provide that PPF amount of NRI can be continued up to 15 years.

In this regard, I have to point out that the Public Provident Fund Scheme 1968 was amended by including a proviso to clause 3 with regard to the closure of the Public Provident Fund account of non-residents with effect from the day a person becomes a non-resident. Therefore, till such time the scheme is amended, an office memorandum may not be able to override the amended law. The Ministry concerned will also therefore amend the scheme so as to provide that the amendment made in 2017 be kept in abeyance. Accordingly, in my   opinion, the position as explained in the query legally remains valid.