| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1452 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 422 ITR 0304 : (2020) 315 CTR 0572 : (2020) 274 TAXMAN 0503 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 10(17A)
As no specification or prescription has been set out in terms of how the approval is to be styled or even as to whether a formal written approval is required reward under section 10(17A)(ii) is specific to certain 'purposes' as may be approved by the Central Govenment in public interest and the purpose of the reward by the State Government had been echoed and reiterated by the Centre with the presentation of the Gallantry Award to the petitioner in 2005 this aspect of the matter was also validated by the Supreme court in Abdul Karim where the Bench makes observations on the notoriety of Veerapan and the threat that he posed to the Country, as whole.
|
Exemption under section 10(17A) - Reward as approved by govt. in public interest - Approval whether 'implied' or express -
Petitioner had been recognized by the Central Government on several occasions for meritorious and distinguished services and from the information available in public domain, it is seen that he was awaded the Jammu and Kashmir Medal, Counter Insurgency Medal, Police Medal for meritorius Service (1993) and the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service (1999).Held: No specification or prescription has been set out in terms of how the approval is to be styled or even as to whether a formal written approval is required. That apart, one should, interpret the provision and its application in a purposive manner bearing in mind the spirit and object for which it has been enacted. it is clear that the object of such a reward is by way of recognition by the State of an individual's efforts in protecting public interest and serving society in a significant manner. Thus, the reference to 'approval' in section 10(17A) does not only cannot a paper conveying approval and bearing the stamp and seal of the Central Government but any material available in public domain indicating recognition for such services, rendered in public interest. Specifically for petitioner's role in nabbing Veerapan, he was awarded the Presdient's Police Medal for Gallanty on the eve of Independence Day, 2005. What more if this does not constitute recognition by the Centre of service in public interest, for the same purposes for which the State Government had rewarded him, one fail to understand what is. Reward under Section 10(17A)(ii) is specific to certain 'purposes' as may be approved by the Central Government in public interest and the 'purpose' of the reward by the State Government had been echoed and reiterated by the Centre with the presentation of the Gallantry Award to the petitioner in 2005. This aspect of the matter was also validated by the Supreme Court in Abdul Karim earlier, where the Bench makes observations on the notoriety of Veerapan and the threat that he posed to the Country, as a whole. Seen in the context of the recognition by the Centre of the petitioners gallantry as well as the observations of the Supreme Court in Abdul Karim and ratio of the decision in J.G. Gopinath the approval of the Centre in this case, is rendered a fait accompli.
Followed:Abdul Karim & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2000) BSCC 710Applied:CIT v. J.G. Gopinath (1998) 231 ITR 229 (Mad) : 1998 231 ITR 229 (Mad) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 27 (Mad-HC).
REFERRED : CIT v. S.N. Singh, Income Tax Officer (1991) 192 ITR 306 (Pat) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 181 (Pat-HC) and CIT v. J.C. Malhotra (1998) 230 ITR 361 (Del) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 708 (Del-HC).
FAVOUR : In petitioners' favour.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|