Expense on worship of Hindu Gods & Temple maintenance cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose

0 Comments

1. Akaula says:

   Let us set aside the Tax Apallet courts confused stand or perhaps a well
   thought out maliciousness intent. The following are facts Sanatan
   Dharama means eternal Dharma. But you can not translate Dharma as
   religion, and that is clearly one of our failings. For example, every
   finite entity has Dharma. Space has Dharma, Air, water, fire, earth all
   have Dharma. The friendship has Dharma, a wife has dharma. In fact
   Dharma patni has no analogue of “religion wife”. And that is what it
   would have been if Dharma was translated as religion. And Air, water,
   space, tree, animals have no religion. Clearly Dharma is pointing to
   something that religion is not pointing to. Dharma in fact refers to the
   sustaining and supporting principles of an entity whose Dharma is under
   consideration. It arises from two sanskrit roots, Dhr(from Dhrinya) +
   Ma (from Mange through an unadi suffixing.

   Pooja also does not mean worship it arises from Po +Jaayate. i.e by which pavitrataa grows or is born. So Pooja is a mechanism to remove your internal and external Mala (dirt). Removing that makes one pavitra and saatvicta grows. So it is not worship. To tis extent it is fine.

   But the question is why should a religion (that is an alien construct of different land) get the preference for tax status and not Dharma based on Inidan ethos. That is what Hindus should fight for. In fact if because Dharma is not religion,all Dharma texts must be mandatory learning in schools, since now secularism can to b eased to by pass learning of India’s internal knowledge and ethos. That I believe should be the real battle. In fact Dharma and the associated Samskrutam should be made foundation of
   development, since it will not violate the secular principles, because
   Dharma is not religion.
   Ravindra Koul
   अस्मद्रूपसमाविष्ठ: स्वात्मनात्मानिवारणे
   शिव: करोतु निजया नम: शक्त्या ततात्मने

     Reply

   March 16, 2013 at 7:55 pm
2. Chandra Vikash says:

   I agree with the contention of the Income Tax Tribunal that “Hindu” is vaguely defined today.

   Let’s work together to clarify Hindu as the Nationality of India and Dharma as the basis of our Constitution. “Religion” is an Abrahamic concept and should only be a private practice in secular India.

   Chandra Vikash
   Mumbai

     Reply

   November 30, 2012 at 6:35 pm
3. Mohammed Gori says:

   Sanatan Dharma or the eternal religion. Call it sanatan dharma. called it saivism vaishnavism buddhism and go forward. Actually it is a good thing to get rid of the appelation hindu which was given by the invaders

     Reply

   November 25, 2012 at 9:03 pm
4. Efiling Of Income Tax says:

   strange … “There is, however, no religion by the name ~Hindu’. It only shows that so called Hindu religion has been called for convenience” is it really the case? On what bases did CIT decide which expenses were for religious and non- religious purposes. Maybe CIT should focus on the many others who get away without paying tax. I agree with VSwami this is totally a waste of public resources which can be better utilised some where else.

     Reply

   November 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm
5. ambi says:

   then re apply for the same using shaivism, vaishnavism, budhism, jainism etc.,

     Reply

   November 13, 2012 at 3:45 am
6. vswami says:

   Impromptu>
   In this tax case, so also a plethora of like previous cases, the adjudicating authorities have been called upon to examine and re-examine, over and over again, the scope of the historical concepts of, – ‘religion’ and ‘Hinduism’. The related provisions of tax laws in India, of course, as has always been so in relation to any other subject, has never been the same but undergone changes, some of a material nature, from time to time.
   May be, ideologically speaking, and if perceived solely from a puritan’s viewpoint, all such activities undertaken and being carried on, by and large, are invariably commercialised, increasingly to such an extreme extent, that it is almost an impossible exercise to diligently subject them to an intelligent scrutiny and come to any satisfactory finding or objective conclusion. On that premise, according to a truly balanced view / judgment, perhaps, there is no gainsaying that, in the ultimate analysis, no justification could be found for they being accorded any more, for any longer, favourable treatment, much less any of the tax concessions or incentives provided for under the extant law.
   The foregoing points of view, should one go by what Mrs Grundy has to say, might be of greater force and relevance to the ongoing activities in the field/name of ‘education’ or ‘health’/‘medical care’ for the people.
   In short, the point is, without a proactive system in place, for keeping and maintaining a stringent vigilance and close monitoring of all such activities, on a case by case basis, having the essential objective of promoting ‘social welfare’, the outcome, in a manner of speaking, could only be aptly described by using the popular idiom, – Rob Peter to pay Pal. So much so, continue to result in a drain, otherwise avoidable, on public resources.

     Reply

   November 10, 2012 at 5:40 pm
7. Jitender arora says:

   Dear sir

   i want to ask, shall Reverse mechanism rule of service tax applicable on Co-operative societies Like Dairy Industries.

   Thanks & Regards

     Reply

   November 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm