Section 80D

Section 80D is now Section 126 of the Income-tax Act 2025: Rs. 25,000 for self and family, Rs. 25,000 for parents, doubled where a senior citizen is covered.

Updated 15 September 2026

Section 80D is the provision of the repealed Income-tax Act 1961 that allowed an individual or a Hindu undivided family a deduction for health insurance premium, contributions to the Central Government Health Scheme, preventive health check-ups and certain medical expenditure. It was repealed with the rest of that Act on 1 April 2026 by Section 536(1) of the Income-tax Act 2025, and the deduction now lives in Section 126 of the 2025 Act on substantially identical terms.

The distinction matters for the year in hand rather than as a technicality. Section 536(2)(c) of the 2025 Act continues the repealed Act for any tax year beginning before 1 April 2026, so a return filed in 2026 for the financial year 2025-26 is a Section 80D claim, while the financial year 2026-27 and every year after it is a Section 126 claim. Both name the same ceilings, so the arithmetic does not change; only the citation does.

The deduction has two limbs and they stack. Up to Rs. 25,000 is allowed for a premium on the health of the taxpayer, the spouse and dependant children under Section 126(2)(a), and a further Rs. 25,000 for a premium on the health of a parent under Section 126(2)(b). Either figure rises to Rs. 50,000 where the person insured is a senior citizen, so the maximum for an individual is Rs. 1,00,000. The parent need not be dependent, which is the most useful feature of the second limb and the one most often missed.

One limitation governs everything else on this page. The deduction belongs to the old tax regime alone. Section 202(2)(a)(xii) removes the whole of Chapter VIII from the computation under the new regime, and Section 126 is not among the handful of provisions it spares. For most salaried employees the new regime is now cheaper in spite of that, which is why this deduction increasingly matters to pensioners and to taxpayers with large housing or savings claims rather than to the general run of employees.

Which provision applies to which tax year

The repeal did not take Section 80D out of use on the day it took effect. Section 536(1) of the Income-tax Act 2025 repealed the Income-tax Act 1961, and Section 536(2)(c) then provided that the repealed Act continues to apply to proceedings, including assessment, reassessment, rectification, penalty, revision and appeal, “in respect of any tax year beginning before the 1st April, 2026”.

So the correct citation follows the year the income belongs to, not the date the return is filed.

Financial year	Governing provision	Claimed in the return filed in
2024-25 and earlier	Section 80D of the repealed Income-tax Act 1961	2025 and earlier
2025-26	Section 80D of the repealed Income-tax Act 1961	2026
2026-27	Section 126, Income-tax Act 2025	2027
2027-28 onward	Section 126, Income-tax Act 2025	2028 onward

Getting this the wrong way round is the common error in writing about the migration, because the 2025 Act was in force for months before the first return under it fell due. An assessment or an appeal concerning the financial year 2025-26 that is decided in 2028 is still a Section 80D matter.

Section 536(2)(j) carries the subordinate material across in the same way. A circular, instruction, notification, order or rule issued under the repealed Act is deemed, so far as it is not inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of the 2025 Act, to have been issued under the corresponding provision and continues in force. Any scheme notified for the purposes of Section 80D, and any approval of an insurer’s scheme given under Section 80D(5), therefore survives under Section 126.

The two limbs and what each covers

Section 126(2) gives an individual an aggregate of four separate amounts, which fall into two natural pairs.

The first pair concerns the taxpayer’s own household. Section 126(2)(a) allows up to Rs. 25,000 for a sum paid to effect or keep in force health insurance, for any contribution made to the Central Government Health Scheme or to such other scheme as may be notified, or for a preventive health check-up, for the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s family. Section 126(2)(c) allows up to Rs. 50,000 for medical expenditure on the taxpayer or a family member. Section 126(10)(b) defines family for this purpose as the spouse and dependant children of the taxpayer.

The second pair concerns parents. Section 126(2)(b) allows up to Rs. 25,000 for health insurance or a preventive health check-up for the parent or parents of the taxpayer, and Section 126(2)(d) allows up to Rs. 50,000 for medical expenditure on any parent.

Two asymmetries between the pairs are easy to miss. The parents limb carries no dependency requirement and no income test: the word dependant appears only in the definition of family, which governs the first limb. And the parents limb does not mention the Central Government Health Scheme, so a contribution made for a parent’s CGHS card does not fall within Section 126(2)(b), which reaches health insurance and preventive check-ups only.

How much can be claimed

Each of the Rs. 25,000 figures becomes Rs. 50,000 where a senior citizen is covered. Section 126(8)(a) provides that where a sum specified in Section 126(2)(a), (2)(b) or (5)(a) is paid to effect or keep in force the health insurance of a person who is a senior citizen, Rs. 50,000 is substituted for Rs. 25,000 in that clause. The provision is not confined to parents: it applies to the taxpayer’s own limb as well, so a taxpayer aged 60 or above insuring themselves draws the higher ceiling on the first limb.

Self, spouse and dependant children	Parents	Maximum deduction
No senior citizen covered	No senior citizen covered	Rs. 50,000
Senior citizen covered	No senior citizen covered	Rs. 75,000
No senior citizen covered	Senior citizen parent	Rs. 75,000
Senior citizen covered	Senior citizen parent	Rs. 1,00,000

Rs. 1,00,000 is the ceiling for an individual however the claim is composed, because Section 126(4) caps each pair at Rs. 50,000 independently and there are only two pairs. Adding medical expenditure to a claim does not raise the total; it fills the headroom left under a shared pair ceiling.

The enhancement is triggered by a payment for health insurance. On the face of Section 126(8)(a) a Central Government Health Scheme contribution, standing alone, does not engage it, because the clause speaks of a sum paid to effect or keep in force the health insurance of a senior citizen. A pensioner whose only qualifying payment is a CGHS contribution should not assume the Rs. 50,000 ceiling without advice.

Who counts as a senior citizen

Section 2(100) of the Income-tax Act 2025 defines a senior citizen as an individual resident in India who is of the age of sixty years or more at any time during the relevant tax year.

Two conditions sit in that sentence and both decide real cases. Residence is required, so a parent living abroad does not attract the Rs. 50,000 ceiling however old they are. And the age needs only to be attained at some point during the year, so a parent whose sixtieth birthday falls in March 2027 is a senior citizen for the whole of the financial year 2026-27, and the higher ceiling applies to a premium paid the previous April.

The 2025 Act has no concept of a very senior citizen. The eighty-year threshold that once governed part of the old deduction appears nowhere in it, and the only age term in the Act is the sixty-year definition above. Any guidance still turning on an eighty-year line is describing a superseded position.

Preventive health check-up

A preventive health check-up is deductible, and the allowance is smaller and narrower than it is usually described. Section 126(3) allows the deduction for amounts referred to in Section 126(2)(a) or (2)(b) that are paid on account of a preventive health check-up “up to Rs. 5,000 in aggregate”.

Three consequences follow from the drafting. The Rs. 5,000 is inside the Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 50,000 ceiling rather than an addition to it, because each of those clauses already counts the check-up payment within its own aggregate. It is a single Rs. 5,000 spanning both limbs together, not Rs. 5,000 for the family and another Rs. 5,000 for parents: a taxpayer who spends Rs. 6,000 on check-ups for the household and Rs. 4,000 on check-ups for parents claims Rs. 5,000 in all. And a Hindu undivided family gets nothing under this head, because Section 126(3) reaches Section 126(2) and not Section 126(5).

It is also the one payment that may be made in cash, which is dealt with below.

Medical expenditure on an uninsured senior citizen

Section 126(2)(c) and (2)(d) allow up to Rs. 50,000 each for medical expenditure, on the taxpayer or a family member and on a parent respectively. Section 126(7) conditions the limb: where the amount is paid on the health of a senior citizen, the deduction is allowed if no amount has been paid to keep in force the health insurance of that person.

The purpose is recognisable. A person aged 60 or above who cannot obtain affordable cover, or who has none, gets relief for what they actually spend instead of relief for a premium they do not pay. It is an alternative to the insurance limb, not a supplement to it, which is why Section 126(4) caps Section 126(2)(a) and (2)(c) together at Rs. 50,000, and Section 126(2)(b) and (2)(d) together at Rs. 50,000.

One drafting point deserves care rather than confidence. Under the 1961 Act the senior-citizen status was framed as a condition of entitlement to the medical-expenditure limbs. Section 126(7) is recast as a sentence about what happens where the payment is on the health of a senior citizen, and read strictly it states a condition for that case without in terms barring expenditure on a person below sixty. No clarification has been issued, and the safe reading, which the Central Government Health Scheme article also takes, is that the limb remains a senior-citizen one.

Contributions to the Central Government Health Scheme

Section 126(2)(a) names the Central Government Health Scheme expressly, so a serving employee’s monthly contribution and a pensioner’s card payment are both deductible in the old regime. The scheme was written into the predecessor provision with effect from 1 April 2014 and the 2025 Act carried the reference across unchanged.

Three limits on that. The contribution is not an extra deduction stacked on a health insurance premium: both draw on the same Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 50,000 ceiling. Only the beneficiary’s own contribution counts, never the government share. And it is the contribution that is deductible rather than the value of treatment received, so a beneficiary admitted to hospital three times in a year claims the same figure as one who never attends a Wellness Centre.

A whole-life card bought with a single lump sum sits in an unsettled corner of the section, for the reason set out under lump-sum premiums below. The CGHS contribution and ward entitlement article carries the current slab of monthly contributions by pay level, and CGHS for pensioners sets out the annual and whole-life options.

Mode of payment

Section 126(9) is short and absolute. Payment must be made “by any mode, including cash, in respect of any sum paid on account of preventive health check-up”, and “other than cash in all other cases not falling under clause (a)”.

A health insurance premium or a Central Government Health Scheme contribution paid in cash therefore earns no deduction at all, whatever the receipt shows. The rule is not a documentation standard that a good receipt can satisfy; it is a condition of the deduction itself. The only cash payment the section tolerates is for a preventive health check-up, which is also the payment least likely to generate a bank record, and the carve-out exists for that reason.

A premium paid for more than one year

Insurers commonly discount a policy bought for two or three years at once. Section 126(8)(b) does not allow the whole payment in the year it is made. It permits a deduction of the appropriate fraction of a sum paid in a lump sum in the tax year to keep health insurance in force for more than a year, and Section 126(10)(a) defines that fraction with a denominator equal to the number of tax years during which the insurance remains in force.

A premium of Rs. 60,000 covering three years therefore yields Rs. 20,000 in each of the three, each year’s figure still subject to the ordinary Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 50,000 ceiling for that year.

The machinery assumes a term. A whole-life Central Government Health Scheme card is not health insurance and has no term, so the denominator has no determinate value and the spreading rule has nothing to work on. On the face of Section 126(2)(a) read with its ceiling, a lump sum of Rs. 1,20,000 yields a deduction of Rs. 25,000 in the year of payment, or Rs. 50,000 where a senior citizen is covered, and nothing in the years that follow. No clarification has issued on the point.

Which policies qualify

Section 126(11) requires the health insurance to be under a scheme made by the General Insurance Corporation of India, formed under Section 9 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act 1972, and approved by the Central Government, or under a scheme made by any other insurer and approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority established under Section 3(1) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act 1999.

In practice a retail health policy from any licensed Indian insurer satisfies this, and the requirement is rarely the reason a claim fails. Two points are worth keeping straight. The sub-section governs the health insurance referred to in the section, so it does not bite on a Central Government Health Scheme contribution, which is a separate limb. And the Act draws no distinction between a base policy and a top-up or super top-up: such a policy qualifies, or does not, on the same test as any other, namely whether it is an insurance on health under an approved scheme.

Employer-paid and group policies

The deduction attaches to a sum paid by the taxpayer out of income chargeable to tax, which is the opening requirement of Section 126(1). A premium borne by the employer is therefore not the employee’s payment, and it is separately kept out of the employee’s hands as income by Section 17(2)(c), which excludes from perquisite the portion of a premium paid by an employer on the health of an employee under an approved scheme.

Where the employee bears part of a group premium, the Act recognises the arrangement by name. Section 17(2)(d) excludes from perquisite a sum paid by the employer in respect of a premium paid by the employee on their own health or that of a family member under a scheme approved for the purposes of Section 126. It is the only cross-reference to Section 126 anywhere in the Act.

What the Act does not do is explain how a composite group premium is to be split between employer and employee. The employee-borne share is the sum the employee has paid, and so is the claimable amount, but that is a reading of Section 126(1) rather than a position the Central Board of Direct Taxes has stated. An employee claiming a share of a group premium should keep the employer’s statement of what was recovered from salary.

Not available under the new regime

Section 126 sits in Chapter VIII of the Income-tax Act 2025, the chapter of deductions to be made in computing total income. Section 202(2)(a)(xii) removes that whole chapter from the computation under the new regime in Section 202(1), sparing only Sections 124(1), 124(2), 125(2) and 146. Section 126 is not among them, and there is no proviso, exception or carve-out elsewhere in the Act that lets it in.

The regime choice is therefore the first question, not the last. A taxpayer with no income from business or profession exercises the option out of the new regime under Section 202(4)(b), along with the return of income furnished under Section 263(1) for the tax year. There is no lock-in and no one-time-withdrawal rule for such a taxpayer, so a salaried employee or a pensioner may choose afresh every year and claim Section 126 in any year they go to the old regime. The lock-in provisions in Section 202(4)(a) apply to business cases.

Whether the deduction is worth the regime is a separate calculation, and for most salaried employees it is not: the new regime carries a larger standard deduction and a rebate that takes income up to Rs. 12 lakh out of tax altogether. The old versus new tax regime comparison and the tax regime break-even guide work the arithmetic. A pensioner with a large CGHS or insurance outlay, interest income and little else is one of the narrower cases where the old regime still wins.

How the deduction is claimed

An employee who wants the deduction reflected in tax deducted at source through the year furnishes evidence to the drawing and disbursing officer. Rule 205 of the Income-tax Rules 2026, made under Section 392(5)(b) of the Act, requires the employee to furnish evidence of the claims in Form No. 124, and serial 4 of the Table to that rule covers a deduction under Chapter VIII as evidence of investment or expenditure. Form No. 124 is the successor to the old Form 12BB.

Missing that deadline is not fatal. A deduction not given effect in salary deduction can still be claimed in the return, and the refund follows. What cannot be cured is a payment made in cash, or a premium on a policy that falls outside Section 126(11), because those go to entitlement rather than to evidence.

There is no rule under Section 126 in the Income-tax Rules 2026, and the predecessor section had none either, so the section is self-contained and no prescribed form or certificate attaches to the deduction itself beyond the ordinary proof of payment.

Common mistakes

Treating the Rs. 5,000 check-up allowance as an addition. It sits inside the ceiling and is a single figure across both limbs.

Assuming the Rs. 50,000 ceiling needs a senior-citizen parent. Section 126(8)(a) applies to the taxpayer’s own limb too, so a taxpayer aged 60 or above insuring themselves gets it without reference to a parent.

Assuming a parent must be dependent. Section 126(2)(b) has no dependency requirement and no income test.

Paying a premium in cash. It removes the deduction entirely under Section 126(9).

Claiming a multi-year premium in full. Section 126(8)(b) spreads it across the years the policy runs.

Stacking medical expenditure on top of insurance. Section 126(4) caps each pair at Rs. 50,000, so the second limb fills headroom rather than adding to the total.

Citing the repealed Section 80D for the financial year 2026-27, or Section 126 for 2025-26. Section 536(2)(c) fixes which provision governs which year, and the two are not interchangeable.

In force today

The deduction for health insurance premium, Central Government Health Scheme contributions, preventive health check-ups and medical expenditure is given by Section 126 of the Income-tax Act 2025 for the financial year 2026-27 and after. Section 80D of the Income-tax Act 1961 was repealed by Section 536(1) with effect from 1 April 2026, and continues to govern the financial year 2025-26 and earlier under Section 536(2)(c). The ceilings are Rs. 25,000 for the taxpayer, spouse and dependant children and a further Rs. 25,000 for parents, each becoming Rs. 50,000 where a senior citizen is covered, for a maximum of Rs. 1,00,000. A preventive health check-up is allowed up to Rs. 5,000 in aggregate inside those ceilings. Payment must be by a mode other than cash except for a check-up. The deduction is available in the old regime only, being barred by Section 202(2)(a)(xii).

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Does Section 80D still exist?

Not as current law. Section 536(1) of the Income-tax Act 2025 repealed the Income-tax Act 1961 with effect from 1 April 2026, and the deduction for health insurance is now Section 126 of the 2025 Act. Section 80D has not disappeared, though: Section 536(2)(c) continues the repealed Act for any tax year beginning before 1 April 2026, so the return filed in 2026 for the financial year 2025-26 is governed by Section 80D, and Section 126 first applies to the financial year 2026-27.

How much can be claimed for health insurance?

Up to Rs. 25,000 for a premium on the health of the taxpayer, the spouse and dependant children under Section 126(2)(a), and a further Rs. 25,000 for a premium on the health of a parent under Section 126(2)(b). Each figure becomes Rs. 50,000 where the person insured is a senior citizen, under Section 126(8)(a). The maximum for an individual is therefore Rs. 1,00,000, where a senior citizen is covered on both limbs.

What is the maximum deduction under Section 126?

Rs. 1,00,000 for an individual. The combinations are Rs. 50,000 where no senior citizen is covered, Rs. 75,000 where a senior citizen is covered on one limb only, and Rs. 1,00,000 where a senior citizen is covered on both. A Hindu undivided family is capped at Rs. 50,000 in aggregate under Section 126(6). Medical expenditure does not raise these figures, because Section 126(4) caps each pair of limbs at Rs. 50,000.

Do my parents have to be dependent on me?

No. Section 126(2)(b) allows the deduction for a premium paid for the health of the parent or parents of the taxpayer, with no requirement that the parent be dependent and no income test. The word dependant appears in Section 126(10)(b), which defines family as the spouse and dependant children of the taxpayer, and that definition governs the Section 126(2)(a) limb only. A parent with an independent pension therefore qualifies.

Who counts as a senior citizen for the Rs. 50,000 limit?

Section 2(100) of the Income-tax Act 2025 defines a senior citizen as an individual resident in India who is of the age of sixty years or more at any time during the relevant tax year. Two points follow. Residence is a condition, so a parent living abroad does not attract the enhancement. And the age has only to be reached at some point in the year, so a parent turning 60 in March qualifies for that whole year.

Is the Rs. 5,000 preventive health check-up limit extra?

No, on both counts. It sits inside the Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 50,000 ceiling rather than on top of it, because Section 126(2)(a) and (2)(b) each include a check-up payment within their own aggregate. And Section 126(3) allows Rs. 5,000 in aggregate across both limbs together, not Rs. 5,000 for each. A taxpayer spending Rs. 6,000 on check-ups for the family and Rs. 4,000 for parents claims Rs. 5,000 in all, not Rs. 10,000.

Is the CGHS contribution deductible?

Yes, in the old regime. Section 126(2)(a) covers a sum paid to effect or keep in force health insurance, any contribution made to the Central Government Health Scheme, or a contribution to such other scheme as may be notified. It draws on the same Rs. 25,000 ceiling as an insurance premium rather than adding to it. Only the beneficiary’s own contribution qualifies, not the government share, and it is the contribution that is deductible rather than the value of treatment received.

Can the premium be paid in cash?

Only for a preventive health check-up. Section 126(9) requires payment by any mode including cash for a sum paid on account of a preventive health check-up, and by a mode other than cash in every other case. A health insurance premium or a CGHS contribution paid in cash earns no deduction at all, however genuine the payment and however complete the receipt.

Is this deduction available under the new tax regime?

No. Section 202(2)(a)(xii) of the Income-tax Act 2025 removes the whole of Chapter VIII from the computation under the new regime, other than Sections 124(1), 124(2), 125(2) and 146, and Section 126 is not among those survivors. The deduction is available only where tax is computed under the old regime. A salaried taxpayer or pensioner with no business income chooses the regime afresh each year, so the deduction can be claimed in any year the old regime is chosen.

What is the deduction for medical expenditure on an uninsured senior citizen?

Up to Rs. 50,000 for expenditure on the taxpayer or a family member under Section 126(2)(c), and up to Rs. 50,000 for expenditure on a parent under Section 126(2)(d). Section 126(7) allows it only where no amount has been paid to keep in force the health insurance of that person. It does not stack on the insurance limb: Section 126(4) caps Section 126(2)(a) and (2)(c) together at Rs. 50,000, and Section 126(2)(b) and (2)(d) together at Rs. 50,000.

Has the 80-year very senior citizen threshold survived?

No. The Income-tax Act 2025 contains no reference to a very senior citizen anywhere, and the only age term in it is the sixty-year definition in Section 2(100). The medical-expenditure limbs in Section 126(2)(c) and (2)(d) turn on senior-citizen status at sixty and on the absence of health insurance for that person, not on an eighty-year threshold.

How is a premium paid for more than one year treated?

It is spread rather than claimed in full. Section 126(8)(b) allows a deduction of the appropriate fraction of a sum paid in a lump sum in the tax year to keep health insurance in force for more than a year, and Section 126(10)(a) fixes that fraction with a denominator equal to the number of tax years during which the insurance remains in force. A three-year premium of Rs. 60,000 therefore yields Rs. 20,000 a year for three years, subject to the ordinary ceiling in each.

Which insurance policies qualify?

Section 126(11) requires the scheme to be made by the General Insurance Corporation of India and approved by the Central Government, or made by any other insurer and approved by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. In practice every retail health policy sold by a licensed Indian insurer meets this. The requirement governs health insurance only, so it does not bite on a Central Government Health Scheme contribution, which is a separate limb of Section 126(2)(a).

Can a Hindu undivided family claim the deduction?

Yes, on narrower terms. Section 126(5) allows a Hindu undivided family up to Rs. 25,000 for a premium on the health of any member, raised to Rs. 50,000 by Section 126(8)(a) where that member is a senior citizen, and up to Rs. 50,000 for medical expenditure on any member. Section 126(6) caps the two at Rs. 50,000 in aggregate. A family gets no parents limb, because it has no parents, and no preventive health check-up deduction, because Section 126(3) reaches only the individual limbs.

Can a non-resident claim the deduction?

Yes. Section 126 imposes no residence condition on the taxpayer, and the contrast with the next section is deliberate: Section 127(1) opens by requiring the assessee to be a resident in India, and Section 126 does not. Residence enters Section 126 only through the definition of a senior citizen in Section 2(100), so a non-resident may claim the deduction but the Rs. 50,000 enhancement requires the insured person to be resident in India.

How is the deduction claimed through the employer?

By furnishing evidence to the drawing and disbursing officer so that it is reflected in tax deducted at source. Rule 205 of the Income-tax Rules 2026, made under Section 392(5)(b), requires an employee to furnish evidence of the claims in Form No. 124, and serial 4 of its Table covers a deduction under Chapter VIII as evidence of investment or expenditure. Form No. 124 is the successor to Form 12BB. A claim missed at that stage can still be made in the return.

Does an employer-paid group premium qualify?

Only the part the employee actually bears. Section 126(1) allows a deduction for a sum paid by the taxpayer out of income chargeable to tax, so a premium borne by the employer is not the employee’s payment and is separately excluded from perquisite by Section 17(2)(c). Where an employee pays a share of a group premium, Section 17(2)(d) recognises the arrangement by name, referring to a scheme approved for the purposes of Section 126. No CBDT clarification sets out how a composite group premium is to be apportioned.

What did Section 126 change from Section 80D?

Almost nothing of substance. Section 126 replaced Section 80D provision by provision, and the map is close to one for one: Section 80D(2) became Section 126(2), the first proviso became Section 126(7), the second proviso became Section 126(4), Section 80D(2A) became Section 126(3), Section 80D(2B) became Section 126(9), Section 80D(3) became Section 126(5), Section 80D(4) became Section 126(8)(a), Section 80D(4A) became Section 126(8)(b), and Section 80D(5) became Section 126(11). Every ceiling carried across unchanged, and the Finance Act 2026 did not amend Section 126.

External references

References

Income-tax Act, 2025 (Act No. 30 of 2025), Section 126: sub-section (1) (individual or Hindu undivided family, payment out of income chargeable to tax); (2)(a) health insurance, Central Government Health Scheme contribution, notified scheme or preventive health check-up for the taxpayer or family, Rs. 25,000; (2)(b) health insurance or preventive check-up for the parent or parents, Rs. 25,000; (2)(c) and (2)(d) medical expenditure, Rs. 50,000 each; (3) preventive health check-up, Rs. 5,000 in aggregate; (4) pair ceilings of Rs. 50,000; (5) and (6) Hindu undivided family; (7) condition on the medical-expenditure limbs; (8)(a) substitution of Rs. 50,000 where a senior citizen is covered; (8)(b) lump sum paid for more than a year; (9) mode of payment; (10) definitions of appropriate fraction, family and relevant tax year; (11) approval of the scheme by the Central Government or the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority.
Income-tax Act, 2025, Section 2(100): definition of senior citizen as an individual resident in India of the age of sixty years or more at any time during the relevant tax year.
Income-tax Act, 2025, Section 202(1) and Section 202(2)(a)(xii): the new regime computation and the removal of Chapter VIII other than Sections 124(1), 124(2), 125(2) and 146; Section 202(4)(b), exercise of the option by a person without income from business or profession along with the return under Section 263(1).
Income-tax Act, 2025, Section 536(1) repealing the Income-tax Act, 1961; Section 536(2)(c) continuing the repealed Act for any tax year beginning before 1 April 2026; Section 536(2)(j) continuing circulars, instructions, notifications, orders and rules issued under the repealed Act.
Income-tax Act, 2025, Section 17(2)(c) and Section 17(2)(d): exclusion from perquisite of an employer-paid health insurance premium, and of a sum paid by the employer in respect of a premium paid by the employee under a scheme approved for the purposes of Section 126.
Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 80D, as it stood before its repeal, and the provision-by-provision correspondence with Section 126 of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Income-tax Rules, 2026, rule 205 and serial 4 of the Table to that rule, made under Section 392(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 2025: evidence of a Chapter VIII deduction furnished by an employee in Form No. 124.
General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972), Section 9; Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), Section 3(1), both as referred to in Section 126(11).