Same-sex couple moves court against Income Tax Act
Independence Day 2025
Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile
Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji gave India its own currency
Swadeshi 2.0: India is no longer just a market, it's a maker
Under the
Income Tax
Act, no such tax on gifts is levied for a heterosexual couple, even if the partners are not formally married but are presumed to be in a marriage. They are not taxed simply because they have the possibility of getting married.
According to the petitioners, such unequal economic treatment to same-sex couples, who may be in a long, stable relationship, would amount to a denial of the equal protection of the law on the basis of sex --- a form of discrimination prohibited by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
They Were So Beautiful Before; Now Look At Them; Number 10 Will Shock You
Reportingly
Undo
Admitting the petition, the bench comprising Justice B.P.Colabawalla and Firdoush Pooniwalla said the court would send a notice to the Attorney General as it raises a constitutional question.
The petitioners, Payio Ashiho, a homemaker, and his partner Vivek Divan, a lawyer who had practised at the High Court and worked at the UN headquarters, were represented by Advocate Dr Dhruv Janssen-Sanghavi.
Live Events
Introduced to curb tax evasion, Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act taxes any money, property, or other assets received without adequate consideration if their value exceeds Rs 50,000. Such receipts or gifts are categorised as 'income from other sources'. However, as per the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x), such gifts are not treated as 'income from other sources' and therefore not taxed, when received from 'relatives', which also includes 'spouses' (a term that the statute does not separately explain).
Unlike the partners in a heterosexual couple, the petitioners are unable to claim tax benefit as they would not legally qualify as 'spouses' as they belong to the same sex.
This petition challenges the constitutional validity of the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, insofar as it discriminates against same-sex couples in taxing gifts received from one partner to another.
The petitioners have prayed before the court, (1) to declare the reference to the term 'spouse' as unconstitutional in so far as it excludes same-sex couples in the same circumstances; (2) to declare that the particular proviso is applicable to same-sex couples in a long, stable relationship; (3) restrain tax authorities from carrying out reassessment and imposing penalties relating to transactions between the petitioners. It may be pointed out that the petitioners neither seek recognition nor presumption of marriage.
The outcome of the proceedings, according to legal circles, would be closely followed by the LGBTQIA+ community as it could have a bearing on investments, property ownerships, and inheritance.
Despite some legal victories, community members, often voicing the discriminations they encounter, believe they still have a long way to go in preserving their dignity and freedom. While in 2018, the apex court had decriminalised same-sex relationship by scrapping a colonial era law, in 2023, a five-member Supreme Court bench declined to recognise LGBTQIA+ persons' right to marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Ashish K Singh, managing partner of law firm Capstone Legal said For such a prayer to be granted, an expansive reading of the word 'spouse' is required to be considered by the Court.
'However, the biggest bottleneck would be the fact that no legal provision in India recognises the rights of same sex couples,' said Singh.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
NATO-like protection in focus for Trump meeting with Ukraine, Europe
By Trevor Hunnicutt and David Ljunggren NATO-like protection in focus for Trump meeting with Ukraine, Europe -U.S. President Donald Trump could offer NATO-like protection of Ukraine, and Russia is open to the idea, one of his top foreign policy officials said on Sunday ahead of a meeting with Ukraine and European leaders to hammer out details of possible security guarantees for Kyiv. "We were able to win the following concession, that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection," Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to Russia, told CNN's "State of the Union" program. "The United States could offer Article 5 protection, which was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that." Witkoff was referring to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which regards any attack against one of its 32 members as an attack on all. He suggested that a security guarantee of that scale could be offered to Ukraine in lieu of NATO membership, which Putin has ruled out. Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and has been gradually advancing for months in the deadliest war in Europe for 80 years, Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who were both in the room when Trump met Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, gave a series of TV interviews ahead of a Monday meeting in Washington with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and leaders of some European allies. 'We made some progress, we believe, and now we have to follow up on that progress," Rubio told CNN's "State of the Union" about the meeting with Putin. "Ultimately, where this should lead is to a meeting between the three leaders, between Zelenskiy, Putin and President Trump, where we can finalize, but we got to get this thing closer before we get to that point." Russian officials are opposed to Western troops in Ukraine, but have not ruled out a security guarantee for Kyiv. Speaking during a joint media appearance with Trump after their nearly three-hour long meeting, Putin said on Friday: "I agree with President Trump. He said today that Ukraine's security must be ensured by all means. Of course, we are ready to work on this." Witkoff told "Fox News Sunday" that Russia had also agreed to passing a law against taking any more of Ukraine by force. "The Russians agreed on enshrining legislatively language that would prevent them from - or that they would attest to not attempting to take any more land from Ukraine after a peace deal, where they would attest to not violating any European borders," he said. PEACE DEAL VS SURRENDER Any security guarantees offered to Zelenskiy could also include a commitment from the United States, Rubio told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures", an option that many of Trump's MAGA supporters have rejected up to now. "It would be a very big move by the president, if he were to offer a U.S. commitment to a security guarantee," Rubio said. "It tells you how badly he wants peace, how much he values peace, that he would be willing to make a concession like that ...That's what we'll talk about tomorrow." In a social media post, Trump wrote, "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!" But he gave no details. Rubio said U.S. officials discussed security details for Ukraine with the national security advisers of multiple European countries on Saturday, adding that the aim would be to build in details that could ultimately be presented to Russia as part of a peace agreement. He told Fox News that the talks between Trump and Putin on Friday had narrowed the number of key issues, which include drawing borders and military alliances for Ukraine as well as security guarantees. "There's a lot of work that remains," Rubio added. According to sources, Trump and Putin discussed proposals for Russia to relinquish tiny pockets of occupied Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine ceding a swathe of fortified land in the east and freezing the front lines elsewhere. Rubio said Russia and Ukraine would not be able to get everything they want. 'If one side gets everything they want, that's not a peace deal. It's called surrender, and I don't think this is a war that's going to end anytime soon on the basis of surrender,' Rubio told CNN. In a separate interview on ABC, Rubio said if a deal could not be reached to end the war, existing U.S. sanctions on Russia would continue, and more could be added. When Zelenskiy visited the White House in February, the meeting ended in a shouting match. Rubio, speaking to CBS, dismissed the idea that the European leaders were coming to Washington to protect Zelenskiy. "They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelenskiy from being bullied. They're coming here tomorrow because we've been working with the Europeans," he said. "We invited them to come." This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 minutes ago
- First Post
Putin agrees to US-Europe plan for NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine, says Trump envoy
Russia's Vladimir Putin agreed at his summit with President Donald Trump to allow the United States and its European allies to offer Ukraine a security guarantee resembling NATO's collective defence mandate as part of an eventual deal to end the 3 1/2year war in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed in principle to allow the United States and its European partners to extend Ukraine a form of collective security guarantee modelled on NATO's Article 5, according to U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff. Speaking on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, Witkoff described the concession as 'game-changing,' noting that this was the first time Moscow had accepted the possibility of such protections. 'We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons Ukraine wants to be in NATO,' he said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Read Also: A non-NATO pact for Ukraine? US floats Western alliance-style security guarantees for Kyiv Article 5 of NATO stipulates that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. While details remain scarce, the offer could provide a pathway around Putin's longstanding opposition to Ukraine joining the Western military alliance. Witkoff, who attended Friday's talks in Alaska alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, also said Russia agreed to legislate against infringing the sovereignty of other European nations. 'There was plenty more,' he added, without giving specifics. Outlining some of the details about the private discussions, Witkoff also said Russia had agreed to enact a law that it would not 'go after any other European countries and violate their sovereignty. And there was plenty more.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking at a news conference in Brussels with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, applauded the move. 'We welcome President Trump's willingness to contribute to Article 5-like security guarantees for Ukraine and the 'Coalition of the willing' — including the European Union — is ready to do its share,' she said. Zelenskyy thanked the United States for recent signals that Washington was willing to support such guarantees, but that much was unclear. 'It is important that America agrees to work with Europe to provide security guarantees for Ukraine,' he said, 'But there are no details how it will work, and what America's role will be, Europe's role will be and what the EU can do, and this is our main task, we need security to work in practice like Article 5 of NATO, and we consider EU accession to be part of the security guarantees,' he said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Witkoff defended Trump's decision to abandon his push that Russian agree to an immediate ceasefire, which Trump had set as a benchmark going into the meeting. Witkoff said the Republican president had pivoted toward a peace deal because so much progress was made. 'We covered almost all the other issues necessary for a peace deal,' Witkoff said, without elaborating. 'We began to see some moderation in the way they're thinking about getting to a final peace deal.' Rubio, who appeared on three Sunday news shows, said there was not going to be any kind of truce reached because Ukraine was not at the summit. 'Now, ultimately, if there isn't a peace agreement, if there isn't an end of this war, the president's been clear, there are going to be consequences,' Rubio said on ABC's 'This Week.' 'But we're trying to avoid that.' Rubio, who is also Trump's national security adviser, said he did not believe imposing new U.S. sanctions on Russia would force Putin to accept a ceasefire. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The minute you issue new sanctions, your ability to get them to the table, our ability to get them to table will be severely diminished,' Rubio told NBC's 'Meet the Press.' He also said 'we're not at the precipice of a peace agreement' and that getting there would not be easy and would take a lot of work. 'We made progress in the sense that we identified potential areas of agreement, but there remains some big areas of disagreement. So we're still a long ways off,' Rubio said. Zelenskyy and Europeans leaders, who heard from Trump after the summit, are scheduled to meet with him at the White House on Monday. 'I think everybody agreed that we had made progress. Maybe not enough for a peace deal, but we are on the path for the first time,' Witkoff said. He added: 'The fundamental issue, which is some sort of land swap, which is obviously ultimately in the control of the Ukrainians — that could not have been discussed at this meeting' with Putin. 'We intend to discuss it on Monday. Hopefully we have some clarity on it and hopefully that ends up in a peace deal very, very soon." STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
The Hindu
3 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Disturbing that PM did not mention Nehru in I-Day speech: Sharad Pawar
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's failure to mention the country's first PM Jawaharlal Nehru's name in his Independence Day speech was 'disturbing', according to veteran Maharashtra politician and Rajya Sabha MP Sharad Pawar, who heads his own faction of the Nationalist Congress Party. 'I heard the Prime Minister's speech from the Red Fort. It was very disturbing that he did not mention Nehru in his entire speech… Nehru gave important years of his youth to the freedom struggle of India. After Independence, he led the country and spread the message of peace worldwide. Even after his immense contribution, his name was not taken by the Prime Minister, which was unfortunate,' the NCP(SP) leader said during an event in Pune. 'Fight to save democracy' On the Opposition protest against the Election Commission, Mr. Pawar said, 'The present situation of politics is challenging. It has been 14 days that the Parliament session is going on, but the House has not functioned even for a day. We sign and enter Parliament only to witness it getting adjourned after a ruckus. It is not a healthy sign for democracy.' He added that this was the first time 300 MPs had come together for a peaceful protest. 'It included [Congress leaders] Mallikarjun Kharge, Rahul Gandhi and members from other parties as well, but we were detained and taken to the police station. The fight is to save democracy. If those in the government do not find it important, then we, as Opposition, will have to keep raising our voice,' he said. A history lesson on choosing unity Mr. Pawar, who served multiple terms as Maharashtra Chief Minister while he was a Congressman, recalled how that party had once prioritised unity for ideological reasons. After the Emergency, the grand old party had split into the Congress (Indira) and the Swarn Singh Congress. At the time, Mr. Pawar had remained in the Swarn Singh Congress with his mentor Yashwantrao Chavan, but neither side had a clear majority in the elections that followed 'Eventually, we came together and made Vasantdada [Patil] the Chief Minister. However, many of us young workers had a resentment against Congress (I), since we were aligned with Chavan saheb. So there was a gap. Dada tried to bridge it, but we opposed it,' Mr. Pawar said. 'I was among the key opponents. As a result, we decided to bring down the government and we did. I became the Chief Minister,' he added. Ten years later, the factions had reunited. When a meeting was called to decide the next CM, many names were discussed, including Ramrao Adik and Shivajirao Nilangekar, before Mr. Pawar was chosen. 'Imagine the same leader whose government I brought down, put all that aside and chose unity for ideology. That was the kind of large-hearted leadership we had in the Congress,' the former CM said.
