Excerpts:
The Assessee's arguments:
The tax law:
...
The Assessee's arguments:
He {the assessee} contended that the temple is open to everybody without caste and creed. Anybody who have faith or not in Shiva, Hanuman, Durga may come or even the person who does not have faith in these deities, can also come. The temple does not belong to a particular religion. The expenditure so incurred are not of religious nature. Even the objects of the assessee are not the religious nature. Putting the idols is not a religious activity. The CIT has not stated how the activity so carried are religious.The question the Tribunal must decide:
We have gone through the relevant clauses which have been regarded to be religious in nature by the CIT(A). The object clause of the trust reads as under:“Worship of Lord Shiva , Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple. To celebrate festivals like Shivratri, Hanuman Jayanti, Ganesh Uttasav, Makar Sankranti, renovation and maintenance of temple. To make available temple for general public and to provide facilities for the public visiting temple. Balance fund, if any after utilizing for the above mentioned objects, may be utilized for education, social and the cultural activities. To conduct nursery school, library, sports club, hostels and other activities. To help poor children for education. To provide medical aid for poor. To help the peoples affected by natural calamity.”Now the question arise whether these objects can be regarded to be of religious nature and the expenditure incurred for the fulfillment of these objects can be said to have been incurred for the benefit of particular religion.
The tax law:
Now coming to the question whether the assessee trust has violated the conditions as laid down in clause (iii) of section 80G(5), we reproduce this clause which reads as under :
“(iii). the institution or fund is not expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste.”
This clause stipulates that the Institution or the Trust must not be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. The words “religious community” means the group of people having a common religion or faith. The word “religion” means the belief in and worship to a superhuman controlling power, specially the personal god or gods, a particular system of faith and worship. It means the trust should not be for the benefit of any particular group of persons having the common belief in worshiping of superhuman controlling power or having common system & faith and worship.
If the trust is for the benefit of any particular religious community, it would include the advancement, support or propagation of a religion and its tenants, it could be said that a trust has violated the condition No. (iii) of section 80G(5).
The objects as has been pointed out by CIT, nowhere talks of advancement, support or propagation of a particular religion, worshipping of Lord shiva, hanumanji , goddess Durga and maintaining of temple, in our opinion, cannot be regarded for the advancement support or propagation of a particular religion. No evidence or material was placed on record or brought before us by the learned DR which may prove that these object relate to a particular religion. No doubt the DR argued that it relate to Hindu Religion but in our opinion it is not so. Lord shiva, Hanumanji, goddess Durga does not represent any particular religion, they are merely regarded to be the super power of the universe....
...
13. Explanation 3 to section 80G(v) states that “in this section, “charitable purpose” does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature.”
This explanation takes note of the fact that an institution or fund shall be for a charitable purpose and may have a number of objects. If any one of these objects is wholly or substantially wholly of a religious nature, the Institution or Funds falls outside the scope of section 80G and the donation to it will not make the donor entitled for the deduction u/s. 80G.
The objects as per Explanation 3 must be wholly or substantially whole of which must be of religious nature. The assessee has submitted all the evidence including the objects and how the expenditure has been incurred by it. The onus, in our opinion, gets shifted on the Revenue to prove that the assessee-trust is wholly or substantially for the religious purpose.
There is no allegation on the part of the revenue that the whole or substantially whole of the object of the trust is to propagate or advance support to a particular sect.
We may observe that Hinduism is a way of life of a civilized society. It as such is not a religion. In this regard we rely on the case of T T Kuppuswamy Chettiar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1987) 100 LW 1031 in which it was held
"The word “Hindu” has not been defined in any of the texts nor in judgment made law. The word was given by British administrators to inhabitants of India, who were not Christians, Muslims, Parsis or Jews. The alleged Hindu religion consists of four castes Brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas and sudras belonging ultimately to two schools of law, mitaksharas and dayabhaga. There is, however, no religion by the name 'Hindu'. It only shows that so called Hindu religion has been called for convenience.”
CIT must be aware of that the Hindu consists of a number of communities having the different gods who are being worshipped in a different manner, different rituals, different ethical codes. Even the worship of god is not essential for a person who has adopted Hinduism way of life. Thus, Hinduism holds within its fold men of divergent views and traditions who have very little in common except a vague faith in what may be called the fundamentals of the Hinduism.
The word ‘community’ means a society of people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations and who have common rights and privileges. This may apply to Christianity or moslem but not to Hinduism. Therefore, it cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion. Technically Hindu is neither a religion nor a community. Therefore, expenses incurred for worshipping of Lord Shiva, , Hanuman, Goddess Durga and for maintenance of temple cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose.
Logging you in...
CIP · 625 weeks ago
It's not too shocking that Hindus should think that they should have special priviledge. Almost every majority religion wants the same. It seems that Indian courts are somewhat unusual in their sense of low comedy though.
macgupta 81p · 625 weeks ago
Sadhana · 625 weeks ago
This has lead to weird situations such as when the self-professed atheists of the Kerala Communist Party come to power in the state and appoint members to the Kerala Devasom Board(temple boards). In the past, some of these appointments have challenged in court on the grounds that the Communist govt members doing the appointing are self-declared atheists.
The Indian constitution on the other hand allows all 'minority' religious groups such as Christians, Muslims, Sikhs etc to operate their own temples, religious institutions and religious schools.
macgupta 81p · 625 weeks ago
Some quotes from their judgement:
When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion of creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.
Confronted by this difficulty, Dr. Radhakrishnan {second President of India} realized that ` to many Hinduism seems to be a name without any content. Is it a museum of beliefs, a medley or rites, or a mere map, a geographical expression [The Hindu View of Life by Dr. Radhakrishnan, p.11]] ?. Having posed these questions which disturbed foreigners when they think of Hinduism, Dr. Radhakrishnan has explained how Hinduism has steadily absorbed the customs and ideas of peoples with whom it has come into contact and has thus been able to maintain its supremacy and its youth. the term `Hindu', according to dr. Radhakrishnan, had originally a territorial and not credal significance. It implied residence in a well defined geographical area. Aboriginal tribes, savage and half-civilized people, the cultured Dravidians and the Vedic Aryans were all Hindus as they were the sons of the same mother. The Hindu thinker reckoned with the striking fact that the men and women dwelling in India belonged to different communities, worshipped different gods, and practiced different rites [The Hindu View of Life by Dr. Radhakrishnan, p.12] (Kurma Purana).
Monier Williams has observed that it must be borne in mind that Hinduism is far more that a mere form of theism resting on Brahmanism. it presents for our investigation a complex congeries of creeds and doctrines which in its gradual accumulation may be compared to the gathering together of the might volume of the Ganges, swollen by a continual influx of tributary rivers and rivulets, spreading itself over an ever increasing area of country, and finally resolving itself into an intricate Delta of tortuous streams and jungly marshes ...The Hindu religion is a reflection of the composite character of the Hindus, who are not one people but many. It is based on the idea of universal receptivity. It has ever aimed at accommodating itself to circumstances, and has carried on the process of adaptation through more than three thousand years. It has first borne with and then, so to speak, swallowed, digested, and assimilated something from all creeds [Religious Thought & Life in India by Monier Williams, p. 57]
macgupta 81p · 625 weeks ago
It will be advantageous at this stage to refer to page 671 of Mulla’s A Principles of Hindu Law (Fourteenth
Edition), where the position is stated thus:-
"The word ’Hindu’ does not denote any particular religion or community. During the last hundred years and more it has been a nomenclature used to refer comprehensively to various categories of people for purposes of personal law. It has been applied to dissenters and non-
comformists and even to those who have entirely repudiated Brahminism. It has been applied to various religious sects and bodies which at various periods and in circumstances developed out of or split off from, the Hindu system but whose members have nevertheless continued to live under the Hindu law and the Courts have generally put a liberal construction upon enactments relating to the personal laws applicable to Hindus".
macgupta 81p · 625 weeks ago
The sole question which, however, falls for our consideration in these appeals is whether Nicolas Sundaram is a Hindu governed by Hindu law. It is a matter of common knowledge that Hinduism embraces within itself so many diverse forms of beliefs, faiths, practices and worship that it is difficult to define the term 'Hindu' with precision.
The historical and etymological genesis of the word "Hindu" has been succinctly explained by Gajendragadkar, C.J. in Shastri Yagnapurushdasji & ors. v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya & Anr.(l).
In Unabridged Edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English language, the term 'Hinduism' has been defined as meaning "a complex body of social, cultural, and religious beliefs and practices evolved in and largely confined to the Indian subcontinent and marked by a caste system, an outlook tending to view all forms and theories as aspects of one eternal being and truth, a belief in ahimsa, karma, dharma, sansara, and moksha, and the practice of the way of works, the way of knowledge, or the way of devotion as the means of release from the bound of rebirths; the way of life and form of thought of a Hindu".
In Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th Edition), the term 'Hinduism' has been defined as meaning "the civilization of Hindus (originally, the inhabitants of the land of the Indus River). It properly denotes the Indian civilization of approximately the last 2,000 years, which gradually evolved from Vedism, the religion of the ancient Indo-European peoples who settled in India in the last centuries of the 2nd millennium BC. Because it integrates a large variety of heterogeneous elements, Hinduism constitutes a very complex but largely continuous whole, and since it covers the whole of life, it has religious, social, economic, literary, and artistic aspects. As a religion, Hinduism is an utterly diverse conglomerate of doctrines, cults, and way of life ....
In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others-including both Hindus and non-Hindus-whatever creed and worship practices suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest divine powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be finally irreconcilable.
The core of religion does not even depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one god or many. Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Hinduism is, then both a civilization and a conglomerate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organization. Every attempt at a specific definition of Hinduism has proved unsatisfactory in one way or another, the more so because the finest Indian scholars of Hinduism, including Hindus themselves, have emphasized different aspects of the whole".
macgupta 81p · 625 weeks ago
CIP · 625 weeks ago
State religions are hardly obsolete, since most Islamic countries, not too mention Israel and the UK each have them, but the trouble comes when you try to proclaim yourself a secular and reconcile that with something that nearly every non Hindu will call a religion. To claim that a building devoted to the worship of various gods is not religions seems patently absurd to most people. Perhaps the rulings of this court makes sense in Hindi or whatever the local language of the State is, but it sounds preposterous to this english speaker, and I guess to most others not invested in the issue.
I personally don't care whether the worship of Shiva (or, for that matter, major league baseball) is called religion or not, and the laws in India are not really my business, but I do care about understanding my native language, which is how I wandered into this debate in the first place. I found a word be used in a way that seemed very strange to me, and I wondered why.
macgupta 81p · 625 weeks ago
There is a difference between reality and the structures we impose on them. The imposed structures take a reality of their own, but the fact of imposition is violence, and the result of imposition is violence.
Religion is a structure imposed by Islamic/Christian imperialism.
BTW, there seems to have been a century-long debate within the Vatican about whether China had religion. The conclusion was it had to have religion, because the consequences of having an example of a society covering without a religion and God were too grave for the future of Christianity.
macgupta 81p · 625 weeks ago