[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Normally, if a cheque is dishonoured, it is presumed under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that  the cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This presumption is raised against the accused and the accused is required to disprove it.

However, in your case, you have mentioned that the complaint states that the cheque was issued to discharge a hand loan or a cash loan allegedly given to you, which was not reported in the Income Tax return of the complainant.

In this regard, it may be stated that in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54, the Supreme Court has held that

“Section 139 of the Act merely raises a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability.”

Therefore, the presumption under Section 139 is only that the cheque was for discharge of a debt, but there is no such presumption that it was for discharge of a legally recoverable debt, or that the debt was a legally recoverable debt.

As per Section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act, it is illegal to advance loan more than an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in cash. Further, under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act, there is a penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269-SS.

In these situations, if a cash loan of more than Rs. 20,000 is given and that too, if it is not reported in the Income Tax return, then it becomes an unaccounted loan and is in violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

In these circumstances, there are judgments to show that such a loan is not legally recoverable debt, as is required to be proved in the case of a cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Some relevant judgments in this regard, are: (1) Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; (2) Sanjay Mishra v. Kanishka Kapoor, 2009 Cri LJ 3777 (Bom); (3) Devender Kumar v. Khem Chand, (2015) 223 DLT 419 : (2015) 153 DRJ 214; (4) G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew (Dead) Through LRs., (2004) 12 SCC 83.

In view of these reasons, the cheque bounce case that has been filed against you on the basis of a cash loan (which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act and which has not been reported in the Income Tax return), may not be valid.     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Whether you as tenant have to pay the maintenance or the owner of the apartment has to do so, would have been written in your rent agreement or would be as per your understanding with the owner. But, one of you have to pay the maintenance since you are utilizing the facilities of the society.

If you don’t know the owner, then to whom you are paying the rent?

The society cannot disconnect the water supply, which is an essential service. You can file a complaint to the competent authority under the societies related law of your state.

If the society has an issue of non-payment of the maintenance charges by a member, it can sue the concerned member for recovery of the same, but it cannot disconnect water supply.

Whether you need to pay for water charges separately depends on the bye-laws of the society. I don’t know whether water charges are a part of the maintenance charges or the water charges are separate, being of contributory nature. But, whatever legally permissible water charges are there (whether as a part of the maintenance charges or separate), need to be paid.

Since you are occupying the apartment which is in the name of the owner, and you are occupying it on his or her behalf, in my opinion it may not be wrong if the society gives the receipt in the name of the owner. If you are paying by cheque, you’ll still have the proof of the payment.

You’ll have to check it in the relevant state law (i.e., Tamil Nadu law) as to where you can file the complaint for non-maintenance of the facilities.

As I mentioned above, you can file a complaint with regard to disconnection of the water supply with the concerned authority mentioned in your state law.

But, I think the maintenance charges should be paid to the society, either by you or by the owner, depending on the terms of the mutual agreement.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Provisions relating to the enforcement / execution of the orders of the consumer courts, namely, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, are laid down in Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

As per this, such consumer forum may order the property of the person to be attached, who is not complying with an interim order of such consumer forum. Further if the non-compliance continues beyond 3 months, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the consumer forum may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.

Section 25 further provides that where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a consumer forum, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to such consumer forum, and such consumer forum may then issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.

This is how an order of the consumer forum (whether the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission) can be enforced or executed.

In addition to the above, Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act lays down that where a person against whom a complaint is made fails or omits to comply with any order made by the consumer forum, such person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is reproduced below:

“25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.—(1) Where an interim order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.

(2) No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.

(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.”

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The facts narrated by you may make out an offence under Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and also an offence under Section 420 of IPC, depending upon whether the ingredients of these offences are satisfied (from the limited facts mentioned by you, these offences appear to be made out).

Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act (I.T. Act) is reproduced below:

“66-D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.—Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”

I may also point out that in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, in its entirety, being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and not saved under Article 19(2). Though now it is only of academic interest, but in the facts mentioned by you, even offence under Section 66-A might have been attracted. But, as I mentioned above, now Section 66-A has been struck down and has been held to be unconstitutional and therefore, it is of no use. However, for the sake of record, I am reproducing Section 66-A of the IT Act (which is not valid) in red ink and strikethrough font:

“66-A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.—Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.”

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

You have mentioned that these traffic police constables expect bribes under the pretext of traffic violations. So, the best course open would be to complain to the Anti-Corruption Bureau or the Vigilance Bureau (by whatever name it is called in your state) and try to get them caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe.

In fact, nowadays, most mobile phones have good cameras, which can record high quality videos. At least the audio recording would be available in most phones. So, you may try to record the video of the whole transaction when such traffic constable demands bribe from you. If possible, two motor cycles may be taken together to the spot, so that if bribe is demanded from one, the other can record the video. This may also be helpful in making out a corruption case against the concerned traffic personnel.

If you feel that this is not possible, then you can at least make a formal complaint to their senior officers with full details.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

I don’t have a copy of the relevant Rajasthan Rules, but generally such rules are similar to the rules of the Central Government. Therefore, I am quoting from the Central Government Rules.

As per Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Government has the right of withholding a pension, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service.

The above rule further provides that the departmental proceedings instituted while the Government servant was in service shall be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service.

However, the departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.

In your case, you have mentioned that the departmental proceedings have been initiated just before your retirement. Therefore, legally speaking, such departmental proceedings may be permissible and even the temporary withholding of the pension may also be permissible legally. However, the fact that the departmental proceedings have been started for an alleged default that took place 12 years ago, raises questions of gross delay in ordering such enquiry. The fact that it has been done just before the retirement, makes it more objectionable. There are judgments of the courts wherein departmental proceedings started after such long delays have been held to be objectionable and quashed. So, you may consult some local lawyer at your place and, if so advised, consider approaching the appropriate court or tribunal (having jurisdiction) for quashing of the departmental proceedings.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The essence of the definition of “dowry” in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is as under:

“dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person,

at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties.

Therefore, if any property etc. is given even before the marriage in connection with the marriage, it may be within the definition of “dowry”.

Section 3 of the said Act makes it punishable if someone gives or accepts dowry. Section 4 makes it punishable to demand dowry. However, presents given at the time of marriage which are of customary nature, without any demand having been made in that behalf, may not be punishable under Section 3, subject to certain conditions.

In view of these, technically it is possible and a dowry case can be filed for demand of dowry even before the marriage, if the facts of the case support the ingredients of the offence. But, as mentioned above, if some customary gifts have been given, without any demand having been made in that behalf, the same may not be considered as dowry. At the same time, it is quite possible that sometimes allegations may even be fabricated.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

You cannot save capital gain tax by purchasing another commercial property. However, you may be able to save capital gain tax by purchasing a residential property, under Section 54-F of the Income Tax, if the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled. Some of these conditions are as under:

• within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place, the assessee should have purchased a residential house, OR, within a period of three years after that date constructed a residential house.
• the assessee should not own more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset.
• the assessee should not purchase any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset;
• the assessee should not construct any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset;
• the total (net) sale consideration (and, not merely the capital gain amount) has to be invested in the new residential house;
• if the cost of the new asset is less than the net sale consideration in respect of the original asset, saving of the capital gain tax will be reduced proportionately.

Please read Section 54-F of the Income Tax Act for more details on this issue.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Let me point out at the outset itself that there is no specific provision in this regard in the main body of the Companies Act (i.e., any specific section) which covers this issue.

However, Regulation 23 of Table F in Schedule I to the Companies Act, 2013, covers this issue. But, firstly, what is Table F? Is it mandatory? Is it applicable to all companies? Let me first clarify this issue.

Section 5 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that the articles of a company shall be in respective forms specified in Tables F, G, H, I and J in Schedule I as may be applicable to such company. It is also provided therein that a company may adopt all or any of the regulations contained in the model articles applicable to such company. The company can exclude or modify the regulations that are contained in these model regulations.

Now, Table F in Schedule I of the Companies Act, 2013, contains Articles of Association of a Company Limited by Shares. These are basically model regulations, which can be excluded or modified by a company. However, as per Section 5 of the Companies Act, in case of any company limited by shares, which is registered after the commencement of the Companies Act, 2013, insofar as the registered articles of such company do not exclude or modify the regulations contained in the model articles in Table F, those regulations shall, so far as applicable, be the regulations of that company in the same manner and to the extent as if they were contained in the duly registered articles of the company.

Therefore, while most companies limited by shares adopt the regulations mentioned in Table F, it is not mandatory and the regulations contained therein may be excluded or modified by a company in their application to such company.

With this caveat, now let me refer to Regulation 23 in Table F, which lays down as under:

“23.(i) On the death of a member, the survivor or survivors where the member was a joint holder, and his nominee or nominees or legal representatives where he was a sole holder, shall be the only persons recognised by the company as having any title to his interest in the shares.

(ii) Nothing in clause (i) shall release the estate of a deceased joint holder from any liability in respect of any share which had been jointly held by him with other persons.”

So, what this Regulation provides is that on the death of a member (i.e., shareholder), the survivor or survivors where the member was a joint holder shall be the only persons recognised by the company as having any title to his interest in the shares.

Now in the facts of your question, if two persons are joint shareholders in a listed company and one of them dies, then the survivor of these two persons will be only person who will have title to the interest of the deceased in those shares. This means the shares will now be in the name of the survivor alone. The successors of the deceased will not get a right in those shares.

As I mentioned above, most companies adopt these model regulations, such as in Table F. So, this is the legal position in most companies on this issue. However, if a particular company has modified or excluded the relevant regulations from Table F (or, the equivalent Table in the old Companies Act of 1956), then the provision in the relevant modified article will apply. So, ultimately, you’ll have to check the relevant articles of the company concerned to get the correct answer on this issue. But, for most of the companies, the above legal position mentioned by me would apply.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Firstly, let me point out that there is difference between “pension” and “family pension” for the purposes of Income Tax Act, 1961. The income tax treatment for “pension” and “family pension” is different.

It is pertinent to point out that “pension” received from a former employer is taxable under the head “salary” since Section 17 of Income Tax Act specifically lays down in clause (ii) of sub-section (1) that “any annuity or pension” is included in “salary”. Therefore, “pension” is taxed in the same way as “salary” is taxed.

On the other hand, “family pension” is taxed under Section 56 as “Income from Other Sources”.

Now, Section 192 of the Income Tax Act makes any income chargeable under the head “salary” subject to tax deduction at source (TDS). Since pension is also considered as salary, therefore TDS is to be deducted on pension also, wherever applicable as per the prevailing rates.

On the other hand, family pension is not “salary” but an “income from other sources”. Therefore, TDS cannot be deducted for family pension under Section 192. Moreover, there is no other section in the Income Tax Act which makes it mandatory to deduct TDS on family pension. Therefore, there is no TDS deduction on family pension.

Thus, the answer to your question is that TDS cannot be deducted on payment of family pension.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Yes. Under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, when a son dies intestate (i.e., without leaving a will behind), his mother is entitled to get a share in his property.

In the facts of the case mentioned by you, the mother, the wife, 2 sons and 1 daughter of your friend (who died) will all have equal shares in the property of the deceased. So, this means that there will be 5 equal shares and his mother will have 1 out of the 5 shares, i.e., 20% share in the property of the deceased.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

This issue has recently been decided by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : 2014 Cri LJ 470 : AIR 2014 SC 187.

In this case, the Supreme Court has held that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. It was held that, however, if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It was held that the category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The Supreme Court held that the aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

In the above judgment, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. However, subsequently, in a Misc. Petition filed in the same case [CRL.M.P. NO. 5029 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2008], by an order dated 5 March 2014, the same Constitution bench of the Supreme Court modified the time period of completion of the preliminary inquiry as under:

“While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.”

Therefore, as per this modified order, now the preliminary inquiry, if any, is required to be completely normally in 15 days, but in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons to be recorded in the General Diary of the police station, it may be completed in 6 weeks.

[Disclosure: It may be pointed out that I had argued before the Supreme Court in this case as an advocate, and had played a substantial role in the final outcome of the case.]

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Your question is not very clear, but what I could understand is that you want to know the remedy against a stay order in a civil suit.

In this regard, I may point out that Order 39 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code provides that any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order. You may try that in accordance with the above provisions and as per its conditions.

Further, Order 43 Rule 1 provides that an appeal under Section 104 of CPC may be filed against an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 2-A, Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order XXXIX, which relate to any such stay order, etc., or for refusal to discharge, vary or set aside such stay order, etc.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

To answer your question, one requires full knowledge of detailed facts, which is not possible without examining in detail all relevant documents and facts. Please consult some local lawyer by showing him all the details.

However, in general, I may make the following comments:

• I hope there was no will left by your father and it is a case of intestate succession.
• Daughter can be excluded from the intestate succession of father’s property (prior to 2005 amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act) only if it was coparcenary property. For other type of property of the father, daughter also has right as per Hindu Succession Act.
• If it is intestate succession, mother, 3 sons and 1 daughter will have equal rights. Generally, sometimes, daughters do not claim their share after marriage if it is only a house in which other members of family are actually living; but that is a different matter.
• If the property has not been partitioned so far, it will have to be partitioned amongst the successors.
• No individual successor has additional right to distribute partitions. If the property is still not partitioned, the mother (being one of the successors) can make a will in respect of her own (undivided) share only, but she cannot make a will considering the whole property as her own.
• Payment of water and property tax being in one successor’s name may be one circumstance which is relevant, but it may not be conclusive of the complete ownership of the property if other legal documents are not supporting that, and if other successors are also in continuous joint possession of the property.

 

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The “family pension” is taxed under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act as “Income from Other Sources”. But, it is pertinent to mention that in view of the provisions of Section 57(iia) of the Income Tax Act, in respect of income due to “family pension”, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income (i.e., one-third of such income) or Rs. 15000, whichever is less, is allowed from such income. The family pension of a widow of a defence forces personnel is also taxable in the same manner.

For example, if a widow receives a family pension of Rs. 25,000 per month, then the total family pension in the year would be Rs. 3 lakh in a year. One third of this amount is Rs. 1 lakh. So, she can claim exemption of Rs. 15,000, which is lower than Rs. 1 lakh. The remaining amount of Rs. 2.85 lakh (i.e., after excluding this amount of Rs. 15000 from Rs. 3 lakh) becomes taxable in her hand, as “income from other sources”, and it is taxed according to the tax slab applicable to her. Of course, if she has any other income from sources such as business, profession, salary, etc., that will also be added to this and the total income will be taxed as per the applicable slab.

Please also read the following article on similar issue: Is Income Tax payable on Family Pension received by a widow?

I may further point out that under Section 10(18)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, any income by way of family pension received by any member of the family of an individual who has been in the service of the Central Government or State Government and has been awarded “Param Vir Chakra” or “Maha Vir Chakra” or “Vir Chakra” or such other gallantry award as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, is completely exempted from Income Tax. As per the Notifications issued by the Central Government, family pension in respect of recipients of the following medals (when received for acts of gallantry, etc.) is completely exempt under this provision: Ashok Chakra, Kirti Chakra, Shaurya Chakra, Sarvottam Jeevan Raksha Padak, Uttam Jeevan Raksha Medal, Jeevan Raksha Padak, President’s Police Medal for Gallantry, Police Medal for Gallantry, Sena Medal, Nao Sena Medal, Vayu Sena Medal, Fire Services Medal for Gallantry, President’s Police and Fire Services Medal for Gallantry, President’s Fire Services Medal for Gallantry, President’s Home Guards and Civil Defence Medal for Gallantry, Home Guards and Civil Defence Medal for Gallantry.

Likewise, I may also point out that family pension received by the widow or children or nominated heirs, as the case may be, of a member of the armed forces (including para-military forces) of the Union, where the death of such member has occurred in the course of operational duties, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed, is also completely exempted from Income Tax.

Other than the above two exempted categories, the family pension is taxable as an “income from other sources”, as explained above. The family pension of a widow of a defence forces personnel is also taxable in the same manner.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Author]

Posts