PM Cares ‘owned, managed and established’ by govt, says Centre – india information

The central authorities, in a reply to an software underneath the Proper To Info (RTI) act on 24 December, mentioned that PM-CARES fund is “owned by, managed by and established by the Authorities of India”.

In its response the workplace of the Commissioner of Earnings Tax (Exemption) mentioned that “PM Cares Fund has been registered underneath the Registration Act, 1908 and being a physique owned by, managed by and established by the Authorities of India,” however that it doesn’t meet the definition of a so-called “public authority.”

In an earlier reply, the federal government had mentioned the fund was not owned, managed or “considerably financed by any authorities”. The fund was established to gather donations to boost funds for emergencies (past pure disasters), such because the Covid-19 pandemic. The Prime Minister is Chairperson (ex-officio) of the PM-CARES Fund . All contributions in the direction of the PM CARES Fund are 100% exempt from Earnings Tax.

The belief deed of the fund issued on March 17 had said that the fund isn’t managed by the federal government. “The belief is neither meant to be or is actually owned, managed or considerably financed by any authorities or any instrumentality of the federal government,” the deed mentioned.

As per the PM CARES web site, ₹three,076.62 crores had been collected by the fund in 2019-20.

The RTI reply, nevertheless, maintains that the fund is past the purview of the Proper to Info Act as it isn’t a “public authority”.

“ I’ve no doubts that the PM CARES Fund” registered as a ‘Public Charitable Belief’, akin to an NGO, must be clear because it has been supplied with many authorities providers and amenities,” mentioned RTI activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd.).

HT reached out to the officer on particular obligation to the PM by e mail however didn’t obtain a response instantly. The federal government has mentioned that divulging particulars in regards to the fund isn’t viable as it’s “private in nature”, not associated to any “public authority or curiosity” and would trigger an “unwarranted invasion of privateness”.

Supply hyperlink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a comment
scroll to top