Taxation
Delhi HC says prize money received by Aroon Purie is not taxable
Overruling the ITAT's order, the HC said prize money of Rs1 lakh received by the India Today Editor as award would be a capital receipt and hence not taxable under the Act
 
In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has held that prize money received by India Today Editor Aroon Purie was not directly relatable to his carrying on vocation as a journalist, but linked with his personality and it would be a capital receipt and hence not taxable under the Income Tax (I-T) Act. The HC explained that every receipt, which is not explicitly exempt would not be an income and its taxability would depend on particular situation, says Taxsutra.com a website that provides, on a real-time basis, updates and analysis of all income tax rulings.
 
The HC held in favour of the assessee (Mr Purie) and observed that in the present case the income would be in the nature of capital receipt and would be purely in the nature of testimonial, hence not taxable. "It being a payment of a personal nature, it should be treated as capital payment, being akin to or like a gift, which does not have any element of quid pro quo," the Court said.
 
The case is related with the India Today Editor receiving an award, including a prize money of Rs1 lakh, for excellence in journalism by BD Goenka Foundation. While filing income tax (I-T) returns for AY1991-92, Mr Purie, claimed an exemption of Rs1 lakh received by him as BD Goenka Award. He claimed that the Award received by him was not in the nature of income as the same was not for any services rendered but was in the nature of testimonial or personal gift received as a token of appreciation. Mr Purie claimed that any such award in the nature of testimonial paid to any professional and is token of esteem, regard for his ability, and cannot be considered as an income under Section 2 (24) of the I-T Act.
 
The India Today Editor also claimed that as the receipt itself cannot be considered as income, there can be no question of claiming exemption u/s 10(17A) and thus claimed exemption of Rs1 lakh received as prize money for award.
 
Section 10(17A) provides that if any payment is made in cash or kind in nature of award or reward instituted in public interest by the central or state government, than such award money is exempted.
 
However, the Assessing officer (AO) disallowed the amount to tune of Rs1 lakh and added back the same to the income of the assessee. The AO observed that any money received or earned in nature of awards should be exempted only if it is covered by the provisions of section 10(17A) and found that award given to asseseee, was not covered by exemption provisions of 10(17A).  
 
Hearing an appeal, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (CIT-A) reversed the order passed by the AO. The CIT (A) allowed the amount of Rs1 lakh received as prize money by holding that the same is not income within section 2(24) and thus there is no question of its taxability.
 
Aggrieved by the decision, the I-T department then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) at Delhi. The ITAT reversed order passed by the CIT(A) and held that Rs1 lakh received by Mr Purie from BD Goenka Foundation was not exempt under section 10(17A) of the I-T Act, and added back the amount.
 
Mr Purie then filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court. The HC analysed the provisions contained in section 10(3), section 10(17A) and section 2(24) and went through the widest possible scopes of the term income explained in section 2(24). After analysing facts, the HC noticed that the prime question to be considered is whether the award or prize money received by the asseseee by BD Goenka Foundation is revenue or capital receipt and secondly whether the prize money is taxable under income from other sources.
 
The Court also referred to several decisions given by the Supreme Court. The HC observed, “The causa causans in the present case is not directly relatable to the carrying on of vocation as a journalist or as a publisher. It is directly connected and linked with the personal achievements and personality of the person i.e. the appellant (Mr Purie). Further, it is to be noted that the payment in this case was not of a periodical or repetitive nature. The payment was also not made by an employer; or by a person associated with the “vocation” being carried on by the appellant; or by a client of his. A third person, who was not concerned with the activities or associated with the “vocation” of the appellant, has paid the prize money in the instant case. It being a payment of a personal nature, it should be treated as capital payment, being akin to or like a gift, which does not have any element of quid pro quo. The aforesaid prize money was paid to the assessee on a voluntary basis and was purely gratis…”
 
While rejecting the I-T department's contention that all prizes or awards in cash or kind would be income except those specifically covered and exempted under sub- section (17A) to Section 10, the Delhi HC opined, “that question of exemption would not arise where the receipt itself does not fall within the ambit of income”.

User

Five terror accused trying to flee gunned down in Telangana
 Police shot dead five terror accused as they tried to escape from their custody in Telangana's Warangal district on Tuesday when they were being brought to Hyderabad, police said.
 
Policemen opened fire when the accused tried to snatch a weapon from a policeman in the vehicle near Pemburti in Jangaon mandal of Warangal district, about 80 km from here.
 
Viqaruddin Ahmed and his four associates, involved in the killing of two policemen and several other extremist offences, were killed in the incident that took place between 10 and 10.20 a.m.
 
A police official said the accused attacked policemen and tried to snatch weapons when the vehicle was stopped to enable them to attend nature's call.
 
"They tried to snatch weapons from police and raised slogans. In the scuffle, there was an exchange of fire in which five accused were killed," Deputy Inspector General of Police Malla Reddy said.
 
A policeman fell on the ground in the scuffle and sustained minor injuries.
 
There were 17 policemen escorting the accused involved in several offences. The police identified them as Viquaruddin, Mohammed Zakir, Syed Amjad, Izhar Khan and Mohammed Haneef.
 
While Haneef, an Ayurvedic doctor was from Gujarat, other accused hailed from Hyderabad or other parts of Telangana.
 
Police cordoned off the scene of offence on Warangal-Hyderabad highway, leading to traffic jam.
 
The bodies were later shifted to a hospital in Jangaon, where an autopsy is being conducted.
 
The accused were arrested in 2010 after a series of attacks on police in Hyderabad.
 
According to police, Viqaruddin had links with various terror outfits and was involved in several incidents. He had also floated militant outfit Tehreek Galba-e-Islam (TGI).
 
They were shifted to Warangal Central Jail in 2011 after they attacked a prison official in Cherlapally Jail in Hyderabad.
 
Viqaruddin continued picking up fights with staff in Warangal Jail. He also had fight with policemen escorting him and other accused to the court.
 
Viqaruddin and his associates had attacked policemen in the old city of Hyderabad between 2008 and 2010 to avenge the police firing on people protesting after the bomb blast at historic Mecca Masjid in 2007.
 
The attacks on the anniversary of the blast had kept Hyderabad police on tenterhooks for long.
 
Police claimed that they had also shot dead a policeman in Gujarat in 2007 while looting a bank.
 
The incident occurred close on the heels of a gunfight in Nalgonda district on Saturday in which two operatives of banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and a policeman were killed.

User

SC refers pleas against judges appointment to larger bench
The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to the constitution bench the challenge to the validity of the constitution amendment and enabling law to replace the collegium system for the appointment of judges to higher judiciary.
 
An apex court bench of Justice Anil R. Dave, Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Madan B. Lokur said that since they have referred the matter to a larger bench, the question of interim relief too will be decided by it.
 
The National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014, was challenged in a batch of petitions including by the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association.
 
Besides contending that the NJAC route for the selection and appointment of judges infringed on the independence of judiciary, the petitioners challenging the NJAC Act, 2014, said it could not have been passed in August 2014 as there was no supporting provision in the constitution. It came into effect only after December 31 assent to the constitutional amendment by President Prabnab Mukherjee.
 
On the other hand, the government contested the maintainability of the petitions, saying that these were premature and academic as statutory provision to bring in the NJAC has not been notified and operationalised.
 
The government had contended that unless the NJAC was operationalised and someone's rights were affected, there was no cause of action to challenge their validity.
 
While the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association, NGO Change India, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), Bar Association of India and others had moved the court challenging the appointment of judges to higher judiciary through NJAC route, the Supreme Court Bar Association had come out in the favour of the replacing the collegium system of judges' selection by the NJAC.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)