Latest news with #BPColabawalla
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
Same sex couple moves HC against gift tax rules
Mumbai: A has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the Income Tax Act's differential treatment on taxation of gifts between spouses. The plea filed by the couple sought to declare the term 'spouse' appearing in the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act as unconstitutional as it excludes same sex couples from the scope and definition of the term 'spouse'. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, any money, property, or asset received without adequate consideration, valued at over Rs 50,000, is taxed as 'income from other sources'. However, the fifth proviso to the section exempts such gifts when received from 'relatives', including 'spouses'. The term 'spouse' is not separately defined in the Act. A bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla on Aug 14 said the plea challenges the constitutional validity of a provision of law and issued notice to the Attorney General of India. Ashish K Singh, managing partner of law firm Capstone Legal said that for such a prayer to be granted, an expansive reading of the word 'spouse' is required to be considered by the court. The court posted the matter for hearing on Sep 18. The petition also sought a declaration extending the benefit of the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act to the petitioners who claim to be in a long-term, stable same sex relationship. It also sought a relief to include same sex couples under the definition of 'spouse' in the provision. The plea said same sex couples who are in a long-term and stable relationship are in the same position as heterosexual couples which would be presumed to be in a marriage. PTI
India Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Claiming discrimination, same-sex couple approaches court over uneven tax: Report
A same-sex couple has approached the Bombay High Court challenging a provision in the Income Tax Act that they say discriminates against them by taxing gifts exchanged between partners, reported The Economic petition was admitted by a bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdoush Pooniwalla, which has also issued a notice to the Attorney General as the case raises a constitutional petitioners, Payio Ashiho, a homemaker, and his partner Vivek Divan, a lawyer who has practised at the High Court and worked at the United Nations headquarters, argue that the current law provides unequal economic treatment to same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples. They are represented by Advocate Dr Dhruv Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, any money, property, or asset received without adequate consideration, valued at over Rs 50,000, is taxed as 'income from other sources'. However, the fifth proviso to the section exempts such gifts when received from 'relatives', including 'spouses'. The term 'spouse' is not separately defined in the heterosexual couples, even those not formally married but presumed to be in a marriage, such gifts are not taxed, as they can legally marry. Same-sex couples cannot claim the same exemption as they are not legally recognised as spouses in petitioners have asked the court to declare the reference to 'spouse' unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes same-sex couples, to make the proviso applicable to same-sex couples in long-term stable relationships, and to restrain tax authorities from reassessment or penalties on transactions between them. They clarified that they are not seeking recognition or presumption of case is seen as significant for the LGBTQIA+ community as it could affect investments, property ownership, and inheritance rights. While the Supreme Court decriminalised same-sex relationships in 2018, it declined to recognise same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act in experts say the case hinges on whether the court will give an expansive reading to the word 'spouse'. Ashish K Singh, managing partner of Capstone Legal, told The Economic Times that for the petitioners' plea to succeed, the court would need to interpret 'spouse' more broadly.'However, the biggest bottleneck would be the fact that no legal provision in India recognises the rights of same-sex couples,' Singh said.- Ends advertisement
Mint
11-06-2025
- Mint
10 years on, Kurla hotel fire victims to get ₹50 lakh each in compensation after Bombay HC order to BMC
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday, June 10, directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to pay ₹ 50 lakh each as compensation to the kin of eight victims of a hotel fire incident in Kurla or Mumbai. All eight victims died in a fire in Hotel City Kinara in 2015. As many as eight persons were killed when a fire broke out inside the Kurla hotel on October 16, 2015. Seven of them were students aged 18-20, and the eighth victim was a 31-year-old design engineer from Virar. The high court was hearing petitions filed by parents of the victims seeking to quash the Lokayukta's February 2017 order, which dismissed their complaint seeking a probe. The Lokayukta, while dismissing their pleas, noted that compensation of ₹ 1 lakh each was disbursed. The families sought the enhancement of the compensation amount. Citing its gross failure in the discharge of its duties, the high court ordered the civic body to pay ₹ 50 lakh each to the families of the victims within 12 weeks. 'Due to the failure of the BMC in taking action, the illegality in Kinara continued unabated and ultimately led to the fire and the loss of life,' a bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla said. The court remarked it was "shocking" that the BMC took no action against the hotel, even though it was aware the establishment lacked the necessary fire department approvals. 'Had the BMC taken prompt action, then the fire incident would not have definitely not occurred,' the court noted. 'The negligence and breach of statutory duties by the BMC is a proximate cause of the fire, and the civic body can be held vicariously liable for the acts of commission and omission of its officials.' 'This violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and their kin under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been caused as a direct result of the negligence and breach of statutory duties on the part of BMC,' the court said. The court also noted a list of violations on part of the hotel, saying it operated a service area on the mezzanine floor, which was supposed to be a storage area and also did not have a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the fire department. Kinara was granted an eating housing licence without obtaining any fire NOC from the fire department, the court said. The hotel had also stored several gas cylinders which was prohibited.
Mint
11-06-2025
- Mint
10 years on, Kurla hotel fire victims to get ₹50 lakh each in compensation after Bombay HC order to BMC
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday, June 10, directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to pay ₹ 50 lakh each as compensation to the kin of eight victims of a hotel fire incident in Kurla or Mumbai. All eight victims died in a fire in Hotel City Kinara in 2015. As many as eight persons were killed when a fire broke out inside the Kurla hotel on October 16, 2015. Seven of them were students aged 18-20, and the eighth victim was a 31-year-old design engineer from Virar. The high court was hearing petitions filed by parents of the victims seeking to quash the Lokayukta's February 2017 order, which dismissed their complaint seeking a probe. The Lokayukta, while dismissing their pleas, noted that compensation of ₹ 1 lakh each was disbursed. The families sought the enhancement of the compensation amount. Citing its gross failure in the discharge of its duties, the high court ordered the civic body to pay ₹ 50 lakh each to the families of the victims within 12 weeks. 'Due to the failure of the BMC in taking action, the illegality in Kinara continued unabated and ultimately led to the fire and the loss of life,' a bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla said. The court remarked it was "shocking" that the BMC took no action against the hotel, even though it was aware the establishment lacked the necessary fire department approvals. 'Had the BMC taken prompt action, then the fire incident would not have definitely not occurred,' the court noted. 'The negligence and breach of statutory duties by the BMC is a proximate cause of the fire, and the civic body can be held vicariously liable for the acts of commission and omission of its officials.' 'This violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and their kin under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been caused as a direct result of the negligence and breach of statutory duties on the part of BMC,' the court said. The court also noted a list of violations on part of the hotel, saying it operated a service area on the mezzanine floor, which was supposed to be a storage area and also did not have a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the fire department. Kinara was granted an eating housing licence without obtaining any fire NOC from the fire department, the court said. The hotel had also stored several gas cylinders which was prohibited. "This, in our view, was one of the most egregious breaches committed not only by the owner and operator of Kinara but also by Respondent No.2 by issuing an eating house licence to Kinara without obtaining any fire NOC," it observed.
India Today
10-06-2025
- India Today
Kinara fire: Court holds civic body liable, orders to pay Rs 50 lakh to families
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) liable for gross negligence in the 2015 fire at Hotel City Kinara in Mumbai, which claimed the lives of eight young adults. The court directed the BMC to pay Rs 50 lakh in compensation to each of the victims' families within 12 weeks, warning that failure to do so would attract an interest of 9% per annum from the date of the order until full payment or tragic incident occurred on October 16, 2015, when a group of eight had gathered for lunch at a restaurant. They were seated on the mezzanine floor when a fire broke out around 1:20 p.m., leading to their deaths. A complaint was initially filed with the Lokayukta seeking investigation and compensation. The Lokayukta dismissed the complaint, citing prior compensation ordered and credited to the Tahsildar of Kurla. The petitioners then challenged this before the High Court.A division bench comprising Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla examined whether the BMC could be held liable for the incident and if compensation was still due. The civic body argued that the fire resulted from gross negligence by the restaurant's owner and staff and that it bore no responsibility. However, the bench found that the BMC had committed a gross breach of statutory duty. It noted that the civic body had received complaints and was aware of serious licence violations by the restaurant that posed fire hazards, as documented in their own inspection reports. Despite this, no preventive action was taken. The court ruled that the BMC's inaction had a direct and proximate link to the BMC claimed limitations in manpower and infrastructure due to Mumbai's size and said that two sanitary inspectors had been punished following a departmental inquiry. The court responded that such internal action did not absolve the BMC from its constitutional responsibility to safeguard citizens' fundamental rights under Article court made it clear that while the BMC is free to recover compensation from the restaurant owner and operators, it cannot escape its primary liability to compensate the petitioners. It also clarified that the Rs 1 lakh ex gratia paid by the state government was only an ad hoc amount and not the full measure of damages the court quashed the Lokayukta's dismissal of the complaint and reaffirmed that the BMC's negligence directly contributed to the deaths, making it liable for the Rs 50 lakh compensation to each of the deceased's Watch
