女生名叫黄蒲军校
청년 ‘생애 최초 주택’ 구입 시 취득세 감면 300만원으로 확대_我的网站
一 | New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) One of the judges in the Supreme Court bench, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, differed with the view of his colleague, Justice Hemant Gupta on many issues.
Justice Dhulia said that asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity.
"Asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity. It is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.
"Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.
Justice Dhulia even went onto say that the unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child. A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate.This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school.
"The question this Court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!," Justice Dhulia questioned?
Our Constitution has visualised a just society and it is for this reason that the first virtue that is secures for the citizens is ‘Justice’ which is the first of our Preambular promises, he said.
On the other hand, the judge heading the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Hemant Gupta, differed with the view of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and said that the Government (Karnataka) Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution.
"Article 21A is not applicable as all the students are over 14 years of age. The students have a right to education under Article 21, but not of insisting on wearing something additional to the uniform, in a secular school, as a part of their religion," Justice Gupta, heading the bench of the Top Court said.
"Secularism applicable to all citizens. Permitting one religious community to wear religious symbols would be antithesis of secularism. Govt Order can't be said to be against secularism or objective of Karnataka Education Act," Justice Gupta in his 133-page, out of 209-page, verdict said.
"It can't be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order. The Government Order only ensures that the uniform prescribed is adhered to by the students and it cannot be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order, Justice Gupta said.
He went on to say that the Act itself contemplates providing of opportunities and facilities in a healthy manner and maintaining the dignity of childhood and youth so that there is no moral or material abandonment. "The uniform for the students has been prescribed so that there is no distinction between the students coming from diverse background and that each student grows in an environment of equality, fairness and equal opportunities," Justice Gupta said.
The uniform is an equalizer of inequalities. Therefore, prescribing uniform for children at an impressionable age is not only important but has a salutary effect on the mental development of the child to grow in the environment of oneness, he said.
Justice Gupta, find that the following 11 questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:
Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench.?
Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act?
What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Article 25? What is the ambit and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution?
UNI SM BAV GNK。 행안부, 지방세제 개편안 발표혜택 범위에 ‘오피스텔’도 추가청년이 ‘생애 최초 주택’을 구입할 경우 취득세 감면 한도가 늘어난다. 감면 대상에 오피스텔도 추가된다. 행정안전부는 26일 열린 지방세발전위원회에서 ‘2026년 지방세제 개편안’을 발표했다. 개편안은 27일 입법예고 후 10월 국회에 제출될 예정이다.개편안에 따르면 무주택자와 실수요자가 생애 최초 주택을 구입할 때 취득세 감면 혜택이 확대된다. 현재 생애 최초 취득세 감면(200만원 한도)은 실거래가 12억원 이하 아파트를 비롯해 연립·다세대주택 등 주택에만 적용되는데 여기에 오피스텔이 새로 포함된다.소득과 자산이 충분하지 않은 40세 미만 청년의 취득세 감면 한도도 기존 최대 200만원에서 300만원으로 상향된다. 소형 주택 및 오피스텔을 생애 최초로 소유했다가 처분한 경우에도 감면 혜택을 한 번 더 받을 수 있게 했다. 행안부 관계자는 “오피스텔이 아파트 대체재로서 주택 취득을 위한 징검다리 역할을 하는 만큼 사회초년생과 저소득자 주거 지원을 두텁게 하려는 조처”라고 설명했다.실수요자 부담을 줄이기 위해 표준세율(0.1~0.4%)에서 0.05%포인트 인하하는 1가구 1주택자의 재산세 세율 특례는 2029년 말까지 연장한다. 전세사기 피해자의 피해 주택 취득 및 임차권 등기 시 적용되는 지방세 감면도 연장된다.협동조합과 마을기업 등 사회연대경제기업이 설립 초기에 겪는 재정적 어려움을 덜어주기 위한 지방세 감면 조치도 실시한다. 기본 감면율은 55%며 여기에 초기 기업 15%, 세금 부담 능력이 낮은 기업 15%, 비수도권·인구 감소 지역 15% 등을 추가해 최대 100%까지 적용받을 수 있다. 농·수협, 새마을금고, 신협 등의 취득세·재산세 감면율은 종전 100%에서 75~100%(기본 75%·비수도권 등 25% 추가)로 조정한다.행안부는 이번 지방세제 개편으로 내년 지방세 지출이 547억원 감소할 것으로 전망했다. 손종필 나라살림연구소장은 “정부의 지역 균형발전 기조 등 향후 예상되는 재정 수요 증가에도 불구하고 지방세 증대 항목이 없다”며 “거대 영리기업 성격의 농·수협에 사회연대경제기업과의 형평성을 이유로 취득세와 재산세 감면을 이어가는 것도 아쉬운 대목”이라고 평가했다.。
Current article:http://7zb7.cousizhegaobaolengkuo.bond/o7h7d/p3amj.html
Published on:17:02:00
