Called this provision discriminatory
Let us tell you that the Supreme Court has given this decision on the request of ‘Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim’ and others to cancel Section 10 (26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court held that the denial of the benefit of exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act to a Sikkimese woman married to a non-Sikkimese man after 2008 is ‘arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India’. There is a violation of. Article 14 deals with equality before law, while Article 15 deals with preventing discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and Article 21 deals with the right to life and personal liberty.
discount was applicable on
Extending the exemption under Section 10 (26AAA) of the 1961 Act also to persons of Indian origin living in Sikkim on April 26, 1975, when the state merged with India, the top court has held that about 95% of the population Extended the scope of tax exemption. The earlier exemption was applicable to those holding Sikkim subject certificates and their descendants who were made Indian citizens under the Sikkim Citizenship Amendment Order, 1989.
Being married shouldn’t take away identity
Dealing with a petition filed by the Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim challenging Section 10 (26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagaratna found the provision to be “arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional”, according to reports . Because women were not included in it. The denial of exemption to Sikkimese women who married men from outside Sikkim after April 1, 2008 was part of the provision of section 10(26AAA). The court said that such exclusion did not apply to Sikkimese men who married non-Sikkimese women.
: Language Inputs
This post is sourced from newspapers, magazines and third-party websites. For more information please check NewsDay Express Disclaimer.