{"id":45323,"date":"2016-04-29T13:40:06","date_gmt":"2016-04-29T08:10:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=45323"},"modified":"2016-05-31T16:20:37","modified_gmt":"2016-05-31T10:50:37","slug":"constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upheld"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Madras High Court: <\/strong>In the present case where questions were raised on the constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the impugned provision contravenes Articles 14, 19, 51, 253 and 265 read with Entry 82 of List 1 of VII Schedule of the Constitution and is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Articles 246 and 248 read with Entry 10, 14, 82 and 97 of List 1 of VII Schedule of the Constitution, the Division Bench of V. Ramasubramanian and T. Mathivanan, JJ., upheld the constitutionality of Section 94A (1) of the Income Tax Act stating that in the present times when scams like Panama Leaks are being revealed, the provisions related to tax avoidance are the need of the hour.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">India had entered into an \u2018Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital\u2019, with the Republic of Cyprus in 1994. The challenge against Section 94A (1) came up before the Court as the petitioners via their counsel Arvind P. Datar argued that the provision has conferred sweeping powers upon the Central Government to specify any country as a notified jurisdictional area in relation to transactions entered into by any assessee, irrespective of whether such country is one, with whom a bilateral Treaty has already been entered into or not. It was further contended that since the State has an obligation under Article 51(c) of the Constitution to foster respect for Treaty obligations. So to specify by notification, any country as a notified jurisdictional area, without reference to the existence of a Treaty with that country, violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 51, 245, 253 and 269 of the Constitution and suffers from the vice of excessive delegation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Observing the constitutional scheme and the contentions of the petitioner, the Court at length discussed the Constitutional provisions enshrined in Articles 245-255 and Article 51(c) along with the 7<sup>th<\/sup> Schedule of the Constitution. It was observed by the Court that it is clear from the language of Section 94A (1) that the Parliament did not show any disrespect to the bilateral tax avoidance Treaty as the provision was enacted in consonance with the resolution passed by the G-20 Nations to take action against non-cooperative jurisdictions including tax havens. The Court further stated that \u2018haven\u2019 practically means \u2018a place of safety\u2019, and in the recent past where revelations of stashed money in foreign countries for the purposes of tax avoidance are getting exposed, the term \u2018tax haven\u2019 has assumed different connotations. [<em>T. Rajkumar <\/em>v. <em>Union of India, <\/em><b><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_SCC_OnLine_Mad_2001\">2016 SCC OnLine Mad 2001<\/a><\/b>, decided on 12.04.2016]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court: In the present case where questions were raised on the constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3274,2592,4891],"class_list":["post-45323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-constitutionality","tag-Income_Tax","tag-tax-haven"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upheld | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upheld\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras High Court: In the present case where questions were raised on the constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-04-29T08:10:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-31T10:50:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/\",\"name\":\"Constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upheld | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-04-29T08:10:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-31T10:50:37+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upheld\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upheld | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upheld","og_description":"Madras High Court: In the present case where questions were raised on the constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act,","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-04-29T08:10:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-31T10:50:37+00:00","author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/","name":"Constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upheld | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-04-29T08:10:06+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-31T10:50:37+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/29\/constitutionality-of-section-94a1-of-the-income-tax-act-1961-upheld\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Constitutionality of Section 94A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upheld"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":60951,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/10\/constitutionality-of-section-66b-of-the-finance-act-1994-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":45323,"position":0},"title":"Constitutionality of Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994, upheld","author":"Sucheta","date":"August 10, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: While dealing with the issue relating to challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 read with 65B(40) and Section 66D as amended by Clause (f) of Section 107 and Clause (2) of Section 109 of Finance Act, 2015 respectively, along with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":240102,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/04\/supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-imposition-of-gst-on-lotteries-betting-and-gambling\/","url_meta":{"origin":45323,"position":1},"title":"Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of imposition of GST on lotteries, betting and gambling","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has upheld the constitutionality of imposition of GST on lotteries, betting and gambling. Here are the key takeaways from the judgment:\u00a0 Whether the inclusion of actionable claim in the definition of goods as given in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-08-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-08-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-08-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-08-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-08-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281633,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/14\/proviso-section-1026aaa-income-tax-act-unconstitutional-sikkimese-women-marrying-non-sikkimese-men-after-april-2008-cant-be-denied-tax-emeption-supreme-court-shah-nagarathna-legal-updates-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":45323,"position":2},"title":"Sikkimese women can&#8217;t be denied tax exemption merely for marrying non-Sikkimese men after April 2008; SC strikes down Proviso to Section 10(26AAA) of Income Tax Act","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Noting that there is no disqualification for a Sikkim man, who marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008, the Supreme Court observed that the discrimination is based on gender.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/Sikkimese-women-cant-be-denied-tax-exemption-merely-for-marrying-non-Sikkimese-men-after-April-2008-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":281628,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/14\/old-settlers-sikkimese-income-tax-exemption-section-1026aaa-uncostitutional-shah-nagarathna-supreme-court-legal-updates-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":45323,"position":3},"title":"They are all Sikkimese! All old settlers entitled to the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While MR Shah, J, has struck down the definition of \u201cSikkimese\u201d in Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Nagarathna, J, has called for saving the Explanation to Section 10(26AAA) and has created a stopgap \u2018sub-clause (iv)\u2019 till the Union of India makes the requisite amendment to the provision.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/They-are-all-Sikkimese-All-old-settlers-entitled-to-the-exemption-under-Section-1026AAA-of-the-Income-Tax-Act-Supreme-Court.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":323093,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/28\/supreme-court-verdict-on-constitutionality-icai-guideline-limiting-number-tax-audits-chartered-accountants-per-year\/","url_meta":{"origin":45323,"position":4},"title":"Explained| Supreme Court verdict on Constitutionality of ICAI guidelines limiting number of tax audits by chartered accountants per year","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cOne of the objects of the Chartered Accountants Act, is to ensure that the profession of the Chartered Accountant in the country maintains high professional ethics and renders quality service since Chartered Accountants are necessary for the efficient tax administration in the country\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitutionality of ICAI guideline","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/03-45-_1_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/03-45-_1_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/03-45-_1_.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/03-45-_1_.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272025,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/22\/issuance-of-bonus-share-and-its-taxability\/","url_meta":{"origin":45323,"position":5},"title":"Issuance of Bonus Share and its Taxability","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Kartik Sharma\u2020","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bonus Share","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/bonus-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/bonus-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/bonus-1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/bonus-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/bonus-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45323","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45323"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45323\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}