The Bombay High Court has held that charging patients, generating an annual surplus and investing in modern medical facilities do not, by themselves, disqualify a hospital from income-tax exemption under Section 10(23C)(via) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash quashed orders refusing approval and directed the competent income-tax authority to grant approval for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2010-11 and 2011-12 to 2021-22 and found that the hospital’s objects, actual activities and application of funds established that it existed solely for philanthropic purposes and not for profit.
Buy Now: Direct tax (Income Tax) E-Magazine September 2026
The petitioner/assessee was incorporated in 1946 and subsequently registered as a public trust. Its governing documents require its income and property to be used exclusively for its objects, prohibit the distribution of profits to members and dedicate its remaining assets to charitable purposes upon dissolution.
The hospital had received exemption under the former Section 10(22A), which covered hospitals existing solely for philanthropic purposes and not for profit. From April 1, 1999, the relevant exemption moved to Section 10(23C), introducing approval by the prescribed authority.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes granted the hospital approval for Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 after examining its explanations concerning surpluses, treatment of indigent patients and expenditure on hospital facilities.
However, applications covering Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2010-11 were rejected. An earlier rejection in March 2009 was set aside by the High Court, which directed reconsideration. Following that remand, the Chief Commissioner again refused approval on April 15, 2010.
A subsequent application for Assessment Year 2011-12 and later years was rejected on September 28, 2012. These two rejection orders formed the subject of the present proceedings.
The central issue was whether the hospital satisfied the statutory requirement of existing solely for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit.
The Revenue relied on recurring surpluses, the proportion of receipts spent on poor and needy patients, and arrangements involving consultant doctors. It also disputed the hospital’s treatment of depreciation and capital expenditure when presenting its financial position.
The court held that the existence of a surplus must be distinguished from the purpose for which an institution operates. An annual surplus is relevant evidence, but its existence alone does not establish that a hospital exists for profit.
The inquiry must examine the institution’s objects, its actual activities, the sources of its receipts and the purposes for which its funds are deployed. A hospital’s receipts and expenditure need not balance exactly at the end of every financial year.
At the same time, the bench made clear that providing medical services alone does not establish entitlement to approval. Both an exclusively philanthropic purpose and the absence of a profit purpose must be demonstrated.
The bench found a material flaw in the Revenue’s financial analysis for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2010-11.
The hospital’s statement recorded an aggregate starting surplus of ₹127,55,69,845. After accounting for depreciation of ₹58,89,19,651 and capital expenditure of ₹90,53,78,412, the cumulative position showed a deficit of ₹21,87,28,218.
By comparison, the authority’s method deducted only capital expenditure and produced an apparent surplus of ₹37,01,91,433.
The court distinguished depreciation, which recognises the consumption of an asset in earning income, from capital application, which records the use of funds to acquire assets for the institution’s objects. Under the law applicable to the years examined, considering both was not conceptually an impermissible double deduction.
Consequently, the finding that the hospital had generated systematic profits during the period covered by the first petition could not stand.
The hospital also argued that treasury income and investment profits should be excluded when examining the surplus from its core hospital activity. The court did not decide that contention because accounting for depreciation and capital expenditure already established an aggregate deficit.
The High Court rejected the approach that expenditure on better facilities becomes evidence of a profit purpose merely because those facilities may attract more patients and increase receipts.
Medical advances require hospitals to acquire modern equipment, replace outdated machinery and improve infrastructure. The statutory exemption does not require a philanthropic hospital to leave its facilities unchanged.
The relevant question, the bench explained, is whether expenditure serves the hospital’s medical and philanthropic purposes or an unrelated commercial activity.
In this case, the funds were applied to medical care and improvement of hospital facilities. Neither rejection order identified diversion of funds for private benefit or an unrelated commercial undertaking.
There was also no finding of management appropriating surplus, members receiving dividends, or doctors receiving disguised shares of profit unrelated to services. The hospital’s statement that managing committee members received no remuneration or honorarium remained unrefuted.
The bench rejected the Revenue’s narrow understanding of philanthropy as being confined to donations or treatment provided without charge.
Medical relief and relief of the poor are separately recognised charitable purposes. Providing specialist treatment, skilled staff and modern medical equipment may also serve a philanthropic purpose.
Section 10(23C)(via), the court noted, does not prescribe a minimum percentage of receipts that must be spent on free or concessional treatment. Although the extent and genuineness of such treatment remain relevant, a relatively small percentage cannot alone determine the hospital’s character.
The bench also recognised that treatment of paying patients helps sustain the same medical facilities. The reservation of beds for indigent patients and weaker sections does not mean that treatment provided in all remaining beds falls outside philanthropic activity.
The hospital’s compliance with the scheme administered by the Charity Commissioner, including obligations concerning free and concessional treatment, provided practical support for its charitable character. That compliance did not independently establish entitlement to income-tax approval, but reinforced the court’s findings.
The court also rejected objections concerning the hospital’s outpatient consultation arrangements.
The hospital collected fees on behalf of consultants, retained 10% towards its facilities and services, and paid the balance to the consultants. Payment for professional services could not be treated as distribution of hospital profits merely because the hospital collected the fees.
The rejection orders did not identify payments unrelated to services or diversion of hospital funds for private benefit. Nor did they establish that providing consultation rooms amounted to a separate property-letting business.
The hospital had explained its arrangements and supplied details of free and concessional treatment. The Revenue pointed to no discrepancy in that material. On the evidence before it, the bench found that the arrangements supported the provision of medical care rather than establishing a profit purpose.
Considering the Supreme Court’s decision in New Noble, the High Court acknowledged that the statutory word “solely” cannot be reduced to a test of merely predominant charitable purpose.
The approval authority is entitled to scrutinise accounts and actual activities. Nevertheless, incidental surpluses arising in the course of the institution’s activities do not automatically warrant rejection.
The bench distinguished decisions involving systematic profits or distributions to member-doctors unrelated to services. Comparable findings were absent in the present case, and the hospital’s financial position and deployment of funds supported its claim.
Earlier exemptions and approvals also did not create an automatic right to approval for later years. However, where material facts and law remained unchanged, departure from the earlier acceptance of the hospital’s philanthropic character required a reasoned explanation. The impugned orders did not identify a material diversion from its objects or private appropriation that justified such a departure.
For Assessment Year 2011-12, the court noted that a surplus of ₹3,45,87,549 remained after accounting for depreciation and capital expenditure, while retaining treasury income and investment profits.
Even that surplus did not, by itself, establish a profit purpose. The hospital’s objects, activities and use of funds continued to demonstrate its exclusively philanthropic character.
The court therefore quashed both rejection orders and directed the competent authority to issue approval within eight weeks from the judgment’s upload on the High Court website.
Approval under the first petition must cover Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2010-11. Although the later application sought approval for Assessment Year 2011-12 and subsequent years, the court restricted relief under the second petition to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2021-22, taking account of developments during the litigation.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
