INDIA SHOULD PROVIDE 100% T6AX RELIEF TO DONORS WHO WISH TO PROVIDE HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO TAMILS IN THE NORTHERN PROVINCE OF SL.

INDIA SHOULD PROVIDE 100% TAX RELIEF TO DONORS WHO WISH TO PROVIDE HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO TAMILS IN THE NORTHERN PROVINCE OF SL.


The only humane thing the economic wizard of India, M M Singh can do is to provide income tax relief, to the generous donors from Tamil Nadu, and entire India to provide more humanitarian assitance to the Tamils of Sri Lanka. This is a man made
disaster mainly created by the 4 Rajapkase brothers, who are citizens and green card holders of USA, and General Sarath Fonseka who is also a permanent resident from USA, holding real estate in Tulsa Oklohoma.

India should show some good will towards the Tamils?
or is it too much to ask from the Delhi Wallahs?

It is a matter of months before he permanently reside in America, escaping from all the killings and atrocities he had committed in Sri Lanka with the help of his military forces. All those are crimes against humanity and the Tamils.

The least India and America could do is to provide Tax relief. Unfortunately, due to some dishonest acts by TRO officials in America, TRO and WTCC are banned and there is hardly any relief available from Tamils living in America and Canada.
TRO Canada although not baned like WTM, is not an approved charity in Canada.

M.Sreethran the head of Tamils Against Genocide is the CEO of TRO USA, and is under Federal investigations in the WTCC and TRO litigation.

T4J.

TAX FORUM: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Contribution to Sri Lankan Tamils Relief Fund

It is advisable to form a separate Chief Minister’s Fund satisfying the conditions under Sec. 80G(2)(a)(iiihf), have it registered under Sec. 12AA as a matter of abundant caution.

Will the contribution to Sri Lankan Tamils Relief Fund qualify for deduction under Sec. 80G? If it does so, will such relief be at 50 per cent or 100 per cent?

Presumably, the Fund has been formally formed by the State Government and that registration will also be obtained in due course under Sec. 12AA of the Income-tax Act. Even so, Sec. 11(1)(a) requires the exemption to be limited “to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India”.

Since it is meant for application for relief of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, such amount applied may not qualify for deduction and on that score, Commissioner of Income-tax/ Director of Exemptions may not be in a position to give approval under Sec.80G(5)(vi).

Since such approval is a pre-condition for deduction under Sec. 80G, deduction even at 50 per cent may not be possible under the normal provisions.

Sec. 80G(1) read with sub-section (2) provides for 100 per cent deduction for some of the funds listed in Sec. 80G(2) such as Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, Maharashtra Chief Minister’s Earthquake Relief Fund, Gujarat State Government Relief Fund for Earthquake and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister’s Cyclone Relief Fund.

Surprisingly exemption for a Chief Minister’s Relief Fund generally covered under Sec. 80G(2)(a)(iiihf) though listed for relief is conspicuous by its absence for 100 per cent relief, notwithstanding the fact, that it is subject to the conditions “that it is the only fund of its kind..... under overall control of Chief Secretary or Department of Finance....”. Since Chief Minister’s Relief Fund is the only Fund of its kind now formed for relief of Sri Lankan Tamils and will presumably be subject to other conditions under Sec. 80G(2)(a)(iiihf), deduction at 50 per cent cannot possibly be denied.

Exclusion of Chief Minister’s Relief Fund satisfying the prescribed conditions for 100 per cent relief is a glaring omission, which is required to be made good.

As otherwise, it leads to discriminatory treatment as it happened in the case of Tsunami contributions in which case, those who contributed to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund for Tsunami Relief got 100 per cent deduction, while those collected by the State Government through Chief Minister’s Relief Fund were found eligible for relief only at 50 per cent under Sec. 80G. If Sec. 80G(1)(i) is not amended to include Sec. 80G(2)(a)(iiihf) or if no separate entry for 100 per cent relief is placed in the statute by amending Sec. 80G(1) and (2), the donors would not be entitled to 100 per cent relief as the law stands and as are available for other trusts and institutions for similar public causes.

It is advisable to form a separate Chief Minister’s Fund satisfying the conditions under Sec. 80G(2)(a)(iiihf), have it registered under Sec. 12AA as a matter of abundant caution and also move the Central Government to make appropriate amendments to law either by an Ordinance now or by an amendment during the next Finance Act or any Amendment Act.

In order that the donors through trusts and institutions may get the benefit, the amendment should be worded in the same language as under Sec. 80G(2)(d) for Gujarat Earthquake Fund, which reads as under:

“(d) Any amount paid by the assessee, during the period beginning January, 26, 2001, and ending September 30, 2001, to any trust, institution or fund to which this section applies for providing relief to the victims of earthquake in Gujarat.”

Meanwhile, a circular from the Central Government pending legislative change should facilitate appeal for donations. Hopefully, the State Government will be able to obtain such amendment or official assurance from the Central Government expeditiously.

S. RAJARATNAM

Is Rajaratnam connected to the Hindu and N.Ram?