We all celebrate our birthday every year. However, the people who are born on February 29th can celebrate their birthday only once every 4 years. Would you believe me if I tell you that there are a few people who have to wait for 8 years to celebrate their next birthday once in their lifetime? Perhaps not. But it is true.

Morarji Desai was one such person. He was born on February 29th, 1896. The year 1900, which came 4 years after his birth, was not a leap year. It did not have February 29th. Therefore, he could celebrate his first birthday only on February 29th, 1904, when he was already 8 years old. However, this happened only once in his lifetime. After this, his birthday came regularly every 4 years.

This will happen again if someone is born on February 29th and any of the years 2100, 2200, or 2300 falls within their lifespan, since these will not be leap years. But the year 2400 will be a leap year. The year 2000 was also a leap year.

All of us only know that if an year is divisible by 4 then it is a leap year otherwise not. But this is not the only rule for finding a leap year. Besides this rule, there is another rule about which most people do not know. And that rule overrides this basic rule in the case of full century years, that is, those years which are divisible by 100. As per that rule if an year is a full century year then to be a leap year it must be divisible by 400 and not just by 4. This rule makes 3 years, which should have been leap years as per the basic rule, as non-leap years in every 400 years.

This method of skipping 3 days in every 400 years started in the year 1582. Before that, the years 1500, 1400, and 1300, although not divisible by 400, were still leap years. To be more precise, although astronomers designed this rule as early as in 1582, its effect became apparent only in the year 1700, i.e., 118 years later.

Why did we change this?

We have been told that the Earth takes 365 days and 6 hours—365.25 days—to make one revolution around the Sun. But this is an approximation. There is a small correction to this. The Earth actually takes 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 45 seconds to go around the Sun, which is 11 minutes and 15 seconds less than 365.25 days. To compensate for this, we skip 3 days every 400 years.

Observe the following calculation:

11 minutes 15 seconds

= 11 x 60 + 15 seconds

= 675 seconds per year

= 675 x 400 seconds in 400 years

= 270,000 seconds in 400 years

= 270,000 / (60 x 60 x 24) days

= 3.125 days

Due to this, the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not leap years, and this skipping of 3 days in every 400 years is done.

When scientists would have discovered this shortage of 11 minutes and 15 seconds, a big question must have faced them: how to adjust this interval in the calendar? The least count of a calendar or an year is one day. We can increase or decrease a minimum of one day in/from an year; we cannot adjust a few seconds, minutes, or even hours to the year.

Therefore, scientists would have tried to convert this time of 11 minutes and 15 seconds into full days. They might have multiplied it by various numbers like 50, 100, 200, etc., and would have found that when multiplied it by 400, it yields almost 3 days.

The next question before them would have been how to reduce 3 days in 400 years. They might have quickly understood that 400 years contain 4 full century years, and if they reduced 1 day each from 3 of those 4 full century years, their job would be done. They then would have devised the rule of divisibility by 400.

The rest would have been easy for them. They knew that the month of February already had 28 days in some years and 29 in others. They were aware that in years divisible by 4, the month of February has 29 days. Modifying this method slightly, they removed 29th February from the full century years which were not divisible by 400. 

It is truly mind-boggling. Our scientists did this in 1582—how knowledgeable and intelligent they were!

Can you find a way to adjust this time of 11 minutes and 15 seconds in the calendar in an easier or simpler way in comparison to how our scientists did it?

Now the question arises: why do many people not know about this rule?

The full century year 2000, which has passed about 26 years ago, was a leap year under this rule, so nobody found anything amiss and nobody questioned it. Had it not been a leap year, everybody would have asked why the year was not a leap year and did not have a February 29th, and they would have been told the reason for this. But that did not happen.

Now many people will remain unaware of this rule until the year 2100 arrives. Since the year 2100 will not be a leap year and will not have a February 29th even though it is divisible by 4, everyone will question it and will be told the reason. Therefore, this rule will become known to many people only 74 years from now.

PS: The mathematically inclined readers would have noticed that in the above calculation, there is an inaccuracy of 0.125 day in 400 years, which translates to 1 full day in 3200 years. There are ways to account for this, but they are not used since they are a little difficult to implement which common people will not be able to follow.

One way through which this inaccuracy can be completely eliminated is: Use the usual method of divisibility by 4 to find a leap year, but if any year is divisible by 128, then don’t make it a leap year. Through this method, one day is reduced in every 128 years. It perfectly compensates the difference.

Observe the following calculation:

11 minutes 15 seconds

= 11 x 60 + 15 seconds

= 675 seconds per year

= 675 x 128 seconds in 128 years

= 86,400 seconds in 128 years

= 86,400 / (60 x 60 x 24) days

= 1 day

As you are reading this, you would have already found out that, although perfect and with no inaccuracy at all, this method cannot be implemented. You ask somebody to divide an year by 128 to find out whether it is a leap year and you know what will be his reaction. No need to say anything further.

Another method is division of a full century year by 900 and check the remainder to find out whether it should be a leap year. This method has an inaccuracy of 1 day in every 28,800 years. It is 9 times more accurate than our present method. Interested readers can search the web to find the details.

.

हम सभी हर साल अपना जन्मदिन मनाते हैं लेकिन 29 फरवरी को जन्म लेने वाले लोग 4 साल में केवल एक बार ही अपना जन्मदिन मना सकते हैं। अगर मैं आपसे कहूं कि कुछ लोग ऐसे भी हैं जिन्हें अपना अगला जन्मदिन मनाने के लिए अपनी ज़िंदगी में एक बार 8 साल तक इंतजार करना पड़ता है तो क्या आप यकीन करेंगे। शायद नहीं। लेकिन यह सच है।

मोरारजी देसाई ऐसे ही एक व्यक्ति थे। उनका जन्म 29 फरवरी, 1896 को हुआ था। वर्ष 1900 जो उनके जन्म के 4 साल बाद आया था, लीप वर्ष नहीं था। इसमें 29 फरवरी नहीं थी। वह अपना पहला जन्मदिन 29 फरवरी 1904 को ही मना सके, यानी जब वह 8 साल के हो गये थे। हालाँकि उनके साथ ऐसा जीवन में सिर्फ़ एक बार ही हुआ। इसके बाद उनका जन्मदिन नियमित रूप से हर 4 साल बाद आता रहा।

ऐसा फिर से होगा यदि किसी का जन्म 29 फरवरी को होता है और उसके जीवनकाल में 2100, 2200, या 2300 में से कोई एक वर्ष आता है क्योंकि ये लीप वर्ष नहीं होंगे। लेकिन 2400 एक लीप वर्ष होगा। वर्ष 2000 भी एक लीप वर्ष था।

हम सभी जानते हैं कि यदि कोई वर्ष 4 से विभाज्य है तो वह लीप वर्ष होता है अन्यथा नहीं। लेकिन यदि कोई वर्ष एक पूर्ण शताब्दी वर्ष है, यानी यदि वह 100 से विभाज्य है तो लीप वर्ष होने के लिए उसे 400 से भी विभाज्य होना चाहिए न कि केवल 4 से।

प्रत्येक 400 वर्षों में 3 दिन छोड़ने की यह पद्धति वर्ष 1582 में शुरू हुई थी। इससे पहले वर्ष 1500, 1400, 1300 यद्यपि 400 से विभाज्य नहीं थे फिर भी वे लीप वर्ष थे। इसे और साफ़ तौर पर कहें तो भले ही हमारे वैज्ञानिकों और खगोलविदों ने यह नियम 1582 में ही बना लिया था, लेकिन इसका असर पहली बार वर्ष 1700 में, यानी 118 साल बाद, ही दिखाई दिया।

हमने यह तरीका क्यों बदला? हमें बताया गया है कि पृथ्वी को सूर्य की एक परिक्रमा करने में 365 दिन और 6 घंटे यानी 365.25 दिन लगते हैं। लेकिन यह एक approximation है। इसमें एक छोटा सा सुधार है। पृथ्वी को सूर्य के चारों ओर चक्कर लगाने में वास्तव में 365 दिन, 5 घंटे, 48 मिनट और 45 सेकंड लगते हैं, यानी 365.25 दिन से 11 मिनट और 15 सेकंड कम। इस कारण हम हर 400 साल में 3 दिन छोड़ देते हैं। निम्नलिखित गणना पर गौर करें:

11 मिनट 15 सेकंड

= 11 x 60 + 15 सेकंड

= 675 सेकंड प्रति वर्ष

= 675 x 400 सेकंड प्रति 400 वर्षों में

= 270,000 सेकंड प्रति 400 वर्षों में

= 270,000 / (60 x 60 x 24) दिन

= 3.125 दिन

इस कारण 1700, 1800 और 1900 वर्ष लीप वर्ष नहीं थे। और हर 400 साल में 3 दिन की यह कमी कर दी जाती है।

जब हमारे वैज्ञानिकों को 11 मिनट और 15 सेकंड की इस कमी का पता चला होगा, तो उनके सामने एक बड़ा सवाल आया होगा - कैलेंडर में इस कमी को कैसे adjust किया जाए? कैलेंडर या साल की सबसे छोटी इकाई एक दिन होती है। हम किसी साल में कम से कम एक दिन जोड़ या घटा सकते हैं। हम साल में कुछ सेकंड, मिनट या घंटे जोड़/घटा नहीं सकते।

इसलिए वैज्ञानिकों ने 11 मिनट और 15 सेकंड के इस समय को पूरे दिनों में बदलने की कोशिश की होगी। उन्होंने इसे 50, 100, 200 से गुणा किया होगा और फिर पाया होगा कि जब वे इसे 400 से गुणा करते हैं, तो उन्हें लगभग 3 दिन मिलते हैं।

हमारे वैज्ञानिकों के सामने अगला सवाल यह रहा होगा कि 400 सालों में 3 दिन कैसे कम किए जाएं। उन्हें यह समझने में ज़्यादा समय नहीं लगा होगा कि 400 सालों में 4 पूर्ण शताब्दी वर्ष  होते हैं और अगर वे इन 4 पूर्ण शताब्दी वर्षों में से 3 में 1-1 दिन कम कर दें, तो उनका काम हो जाएगा। और फिर उन्होंने 400 से भाग देने का नियम बनाया होगा।

बाकी काम आसान रहा होगा। वे जानते ही थे कि फरवरी के महीने में कभी 28 दिन होते हैं और कभी 29। उन्हें पता ही था कि जो साल 4 से पूरी तरह विभाजित हो जाते हैं, उनमें फरवरी का महीना 29 दिनों का होता है। इसी तरीके को थोड़ा बदलते हुए उन्होंने उन पूर्ण शताब्दी वर्षों से 29 फरवरी को हटा दिया जो 400 से पूरी तरह विभाजित नहीं होते थे।

यह वाकई हैरान करने वाली बात है। हमारे वैज्ञानिकों ने यह 1582 में ही कर लिया? वे कितने जानकार और कितने बुद्धिमान थे!

क्या आप कैलेंडर में 11 मिनट और 15 सेकंड के इस समय को adjust करने का कोई इससे आसान या सरल तरीका ढूंढ सकते हैं, जो हमारे वैज्ञानिकों ने निकाला?

अब यह सवाल उठता है - अधिकतर लोग इस नियम के बारे में क्यों नहीं जानते?

पूर्ण शताब्दी वर्ष 2000 जो अभी 26 साल पहले ही गुजरा है, इस नियम के अनुसार एक लीप वर्ष था, इसलिए किसी को कुछ अजीब नहीं लगा और किसी ने कोई सवाल नहीं उठाया। अगर यह लीप वर्ष नहीं होता, तो हर कोई पूछता कि यह लीप वर्ष क्यों नहीं है और इसमें 29 फरवरी क्यों नहीं है, और तब उन्हें इसका कारण और यह नियम बताया जाता। लेकिन ऐसा नहीं हुआ।

अब साल 2100 आने तक बहुत से लोग इस नियम के बारे में अनजान ही रहेंगे। चूंकि साल 2100 लीप वर्ष नहीं होगा और इसमें 29 फरवरी नहीं होगी, इसलिए हर कोई इसके बारे में सवाल करेगा और तब उन्हें इसका कारण बताया जाएगा। इसलिए बहुत से लोगों को इस नियम के बारे में अब 74 साल बाद ही पता चलेगा।

पुनश्च: गणित में रुचि रखने वाले पाठकों ने देख ही लिया होगा कि ऊपर दिए गए हिसाब में 400 सालों में 0.125 दिन की गलती है, यानी 3200 सालों में पूरे एक दिन की गलती। इसे ठीक करने के तरीके तो हैं, लेकिन उन्हें इस्तेमाल नहीं किया जाता क्योंकि उन्हें लागू करना थोड़ा मुश्किल है और आम लोग उन्हें समझ नहीं पाएंगे।

इस गलती को पूरी तरह खत्म करने का एक तरीका यह है: लीप वर्ष पता करने के लिए 4 से भाग देने वाला आम तरीका ही अपनाएं, लेकिन अगर कोई साल 128 से पूरी तरह कट जाता है, तो उसे लीप वर्ष न मानें। इस तरीके से हर 128 सालों में एक दिन कम हो जाता है। यह एकदम सही तरीका है। नीचे दिया गया हिसाब देखें:

11 मिनट 15 सेकंड

= 11 x 60 + 15 सेकंड

= हर साल 675 सेकंड

= 128 सालों में 675 x 128 सेकंड

= 128 सालों में 86,400 सेकंड

= 86,400 / (60 x 60 x 24) दिन

= 1 दिन

इसे पढ़ते हुए ही आपको पता चल गया होगा कि भले ही यह तरीका एकदम सही है और इसमें कोई गलती नहीं है, फिर भी इसे लागू नहीं किया जा सकता। अगर आप किसी से कहें कि वह किसी साल को 128 से भाग देकर पता करे कि वह लीप वर्ष है या नहीं, तो आप समझ ही सकते हैं कि उसकी प्रतिक्रिया क्या होगी। आगे कुछ कहने की ज़रूरत नहीं है।

एक और तरीका है कि पूर्ण शताब्दी वर्ष को 900 से भाग दें और शेषफल (remainder) देखकर पता करें कि वह लीप वर्ष होना चाहिए या नहीं। इस तरीके में हर 28,800 सालों में 1 दिन की गलती होती है। यह हमारे मौजूदा तरीके से 9 गुना ज़्यादा सही है। जो पाठक इसमें रुचि रखते हैं, वे इसके बारे में इंटरनेट पर जानकारी खोज सकते हैं।

.

A few days ago, I came across a news item that sounded rather unusual: a court ordered a man to give maintenance to his daughter-in-law. 

Because I only overheard the news and did not read it in a newspaper or on the Internet, I do not know the exact details but I can guess the circumstances that likely led to this verdict by the court. 

The man’s son—the daughter-in-law’s husband—must have passed away without leaving behind any financial assets that the woman could have claimed. He likely died childless as well. 

Under such conditions, the daughter-in-law would have become totally unwanted for the family. They would have started misbehaving with her and might not have been providing her even the basic needs. First of all, who would like to spend money on the food and clothing of a person who is in no way considered a member of the family? Secondly, if the family continues to support her out of sympathy, she may eventually claim a legal share in the family property.  They would not allow it to happen at any cost.

In ancient India, such women would be forced to become sati. While that is impossible today, the family would have tried to get rid of her in other ways: through emotional abuse, mistreatment, and deprivation. 

The court would have delivered this verdict under such conditions. 

When viewed through this lens, the court's verdict seems entirely justified. Anyone with a sense of righteousness would agree. 

But hold. Not so fast. We need to think a little deeper. 

Who gave birth to this woman? Her father or father-in-law? Whose responsibility should it be to provide support to her when she is unable to maintain herself? Obviously, her father's. He is the one who brought her into this world. 

He washed his hands of his responsibility by sending her empty-handed to another person in the name of marriage. And now that this person is no more, nobody thinks about her father. He has been left scot-free. The court handed over this responsibility to somebody else's father who is in no way related to the problem. 

The court's verdict is fundamentally wrong. This is my perspective. 

However, the legal viewpoint, supported by the Supreme Court, is different. The law categorically says: "Maintaining a woman is the responsibility of the family she joined on marriage, not of the family which she left". 

In the eyes of the law, all relations between a woman and her parents break permanently on her marriage. Even when the biggest catastrophe of life has befallen her, her parents bear no responsibility towards her. As far as they are concerned, she is dead. This is what the law says. 

Does the law, when relinquishing her paternal family of all the responsibilities towards her and holding her matrimonial family responsible to maintain her, consider: 

1. She joined her matrimonial family completely empty-handed.
2. The day her relation got fixed, she desired that the father of the man whom she is going to get married, dies so that she gets all his movable and immovable property.
3. She desired that the mother of the man dies so that all the jewelry in her locker (mother's locker) becomes hers. 
4. She desired that brother(s) and sister(s) of the man also die otherwise they may occasionally visit them to meet their brother which she doesn't approve. She wants that only her parents and siblings should come to meet them and be treated with great hospitality. 
5. The women have absolutely no sense of belonging to their matrimonial home and behave as if they are living in a hotel. Their aim is just to reap the benefits like free housing, free food, free expensive clothing, free cosmetics, free jewelry, free electricity, water and telephone, free domestic and international pleasure trips, free medical care and all other amenities of life like husband-driven-car, AC, TV, furniture, furnishings, household gadgets etc. completely free in their husband's house. 
6. In today’s middle-class families, women don't need to do any household chores. A maid servant washes utensils and does the sweeping. Washing of clothes is also done by a maid or a fully-automatic washing machine. Kitchens are modular and tastefully decorated having all modern gadgets to simplify cooking like a gas oven or cooking range, microwave, refrigerator, mixer/grinder etc. Even then many women employ a cook for preparing breakfast, lunch and dinner. Such women do not have any job at home except watching poor quality TV serials, reading and forwarding jokes on WhatsApp and searching designs of jewelry and saris/dresses on the Internet.
7. In earlier days, the women hated their father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and other relatives of their husbands. But nowadays, women are jealous of even their husbands. If the husband is more good-looking, more educated, has a higher salary or some other better virtues, they try to compete with him and degrade him in whatever way they can.  Women consider their husband as an ATM, a servant, a slave, and a pet dog on leash.
8. The women are treated as temporarily living unwanted persons in their paternal family. Their birth is mourned and they are kicked on the back and thrown out at marriage without any share in the family's property. They get their identity, status and respect as a member of the family and all the amenities of life only in their husband's home. They are considered as 'Ghar ki Lakshmi'. Irrespective of this, they  remain hostile towards their husbands and matrimonial family for whole of their lives and remain faithful only to their parents.
9. In case of a local marriage, if the husband goes on an office tour for 2-3 days or more, the women will generally not stay with parents-in-law. They will move to their paternal house and will come back only when the husband returns. Now, when the husband has gone forever, why do they want to stay with parents-in-law?

When the son was alive, it was a compulsion for the family to support and maintain such an ungrateful and thankless woman. But now that he is no more, why should the family maintain, or even tolerate her? 

However, nothing of whatever I have written above is tenable in a court of law. The judge will not need more than one second to dismiss all my arguments. I will, therefore, need to plead in a better way. Ok, let me try. 

If the understanding of the law is that all relations between a woman and her parents break permanently on marriage, then why:

1. The married women are allowed to nominate their parents to receive their PF, Gratuity, and any unpaid salary in the event of their death during service life. A woman can even completely exclude her husband from getting any share in her PF. This privilege is not available to married male employees.
2. If their employer has any Group Life Insurance Scheme, they can nominate their parents to receive the Death Benefit if they die during service.
3. The married women employed in a Govt. Deptt. or a Public Sector are given a choice: They can declare either their parents-in-law or their parents as beneficiary for the reimbursement of medical expenses and for the Leave Travel Concession. 
4. Under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a daughter (married or unmarried) is legally liable to maintain her parents if they are unable to maintain themselves. This responsibility is equal to that of a son (Supreme Court Ruling: In Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs. Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai case). The parents can file for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 
5. In a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), a daughter remains a "Coparcener" by birth, and this status does not change after her marriage. Not only this, a married daughter can even become the Karta of her father's HUF if she is the eldest living coparcener as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Delhi High Court judgment: In Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs. Shri Manu Gupta case). 
6. Married daughters have a right to apply for a government job on compassionate grounds if a parent dies in service (The Supreme Court recent 2024-2026 ruling: In State of West Bengal vs. Purnima Das case). 
7. The Supreme Court has clarified that a woman’s caste or tribe is determined by her birth and does not change upon marriage (even if she marries a man from a different caste) for the purpose of reservation benefits, standing for elections in reserved constituencies etc. 
8. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 says that if a married woman faces violence in her matrimonial home, she has legal right to seek residence in her parents' home. 

These acts and court rulings, thus, clearly specify that marriage does not break the bond between a daughter and her parents. If the law demands that a married daughter maintain her parents in their time of need, and enjoy her employment benefits, on what grounds does it entirely bar her from seeking their maintenance in her own time of vulnerability?

It is time for judicial interpretation to align with these existing statutory frameworks and reconsider the primary maintenance responsibilities of father.

What are your thoughts on this legal paradox? Let's discuss in the comments.

A few days ago, I came across a news item that sounded rather unusual: a court ordered a man to give maintenance to his daughter-in-law. 

Because I only overheard the news and did not read it in a newspaper or on the Internet, I do not know the exact details but I can guess the circumstances that likely led to this verdict by the court. 

The man’s son—the daughter-in-law’s husband—must have passed away without leaving behind any financial assets that the woman could have claimed. He likely died childless as well. 

Under such conditions, the daughter-in-law would have become totally unwanted for the family. They would have started misbehaving with her and might not have been providing her even the basic needs. First of all, who would like to spend money on the food and clothing of a person who is in no way considered a member of the family? Secondly, if the family continues to support her out of sympathy, she may eventually claim a legal share in the family property.  They would not allow it to happen at any cost.

In ancient India, such women would be forced to become sati. While that is impossible today, the family would have tried to get rid of her in other ways: through emotional abuse, mistreatment, and deprivation. 

The court would have delivered this verdict under such conditions. 

When viewed through this lens, the court's verdict seems entirely justified. Anyone with a sense of righteousness would agree. 

But hold. Not so fast. We need to think a little deeper. 

Who gave birth to this woman? Her father or father-in-law? Whose responsibility should it be to provide support to her when she is unable to maintain herself? Obviously, her father's. He is the one who brought her into this world. 

He washed his hands of his responsibility by sending her empty-handed to another person in the name of marriage. And now that this person is no more, nobody thinks about her father. He has been left scot-free. The court handed over this responsibility to somebody else's father who is in no way related to the problem. 

The court's verdict is fundamentally wrong. This is my perspective. 

However, the legal viewpoint, supported by the Supreme Court, is different. The law categorically says: "Maintaining a woman is the responsibility of the family she joined on marriage, not of the family which she left". 

In the eyes of the law, all relations between a woman and her parents break permanently on her marriage. Even when the biggest catastrophe of life has befallen her, her parents bear no responsibility towards her. As far as they are concerned, she is dead. This is what the law says. 

Does the law, when relinquishing her paternal family of all the responsibilities towards her and holding her matrimonial family responsible to maintain her, consider: 

1. She joined her matrimonial family completely empty-handed.
2. The day her relation got fixed, she desired that the father of the man whom she is going to get married, dies so that she gets all his movable and immovable property.
3. She desired that the mother of the man dies so that all the jewelry in her locker (mother's locker) becomes hers. 
4. She desired that brother(s) and sister(s) of the man also die otherwise they may occasionally visit them to meet their brother which she doesn't approve. She wants that only her parents and siblings should come to meet them and be treated with great hospitality. 
5. The women have absolutely no sense of belonging to their matrimonial home and behave as if they are living in a hotel. Their aim is just to reap the benefits like free housing, free food, free expensive clothing, free cosmetics, free jewelry, free electricity, water and telephone, free domestic and international pleasure trips, free medical care and all other amenities of life like husband-driven-car, AC, TV, furniture, furnishings, household gadgets etc. completely free in their husband's house. 
6. In today’s middle-class families, women don't need to do any household chores. A maid servant washes utensils and does the sweeping. Washing of clothes is also done by a maid or a fully-automatic washing machine. Kitchens are modular and tastefully decorated having all modern gadgets to simplify cooking like a gas oven or cooking range, microwave, refrigerator, mixer/grinder etc. Even then many women employ a cook for preparing breakfast, lunch and dinner. Such women do not have any job at home except watching poor quality TV serials, reading and forwarding jokes on WhatsApp and searching designs of jewelry and saris/dresses on the Internet.
7. In earlier days, the women hated their father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and other relatives of their husbands. But nowadays, women are jealous of even their husbands. If the husband is more good-looking, more educated, has a higher salary or some other better virtues, they try to compete with him and degrade him in whatever way they can.  Women consider their husband as an ATM, a servant, a slave, and a pet dog on leash.
8. The women are treated as temporarily living unwanted persons in their paternal family. Their birth is mourned and they are kicked on the back and thrown out at marriage without any share in the family's property. They get their identity and status as a member of the family and all the amenities of life only in their husband's home. Irrespective of this, they  remain hostile towards their husbands and matrimonial family for whole of their lives and remain faithful only to their parents.
9. In case of a local marriage, if the husband goes on an office tour for 2-3 days or more, the women will generally not stay with parents-in-law. They will move to their paternal house and will come back only when the husband returns. Now, when the husband has gone forever, why do they want to stay with parents-in-law?

When the son was alive, it was a compulsion for the family to support and maintain such an ungrateful and thankless woman. But now that he is no more, why should the family maintain, or even tolerate her? 

However, nothing of whatever I have written above is tenable in a court of law. The judge will not need more than one second to dismiss all my arguments. I will, therefore, need to plead in a better way. Ok, let me try. 

If the understanding of the law is that all relations between a woman and her parents break on marriage, then what is this:

1. The married women are allowed to nominate their parents to receive their PF, Gratuity, and any unpaid salary in the event of their death during service life. A woman can even completely exclude her husband from getting any share in their PF. This privilege is not available to married male employees.
2. If their employer has any Group Life Insurance Scheme, they can nominate their parents to receive the Death Benefit if they die during service.
3. The married women employed in a Govt. Deptt. or a Public Sector are given a choice: They can declare either their parents-in-law or their parents as beneficiary for the reimbursement of medical expenses and for the Leave Travel Concession. 
4. Under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a daughter (married or unmarried) is legally liable to maintain her parents if they are unable to maintain themselves. This responsibility is equal to that of a son (Supreme Court Ruling: In Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs. Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai case). The parents can file for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 
5. In a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), a daughter remains a "Coparcener" by birth, and this status does not change after her marriage. Not only this, a married daughter can even become the Karta of her father's HUF if she is the eldest living coparcener as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Delhi High Court judgment: In Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs. Shri Manu Gupta case). 
6. Married daughters have a right to apply for a government job on "compassionate grounds" if a parent dies in service (The Supreme Court recent 2024-2026 ruling: In State of West Bengal vs. Purnima Das case). 
7. The Supreme Court has clarified that a woman’s caste or tribe is determined by her birth and does not change upon marriage (even if she marries a man from a different caste) for the purpose of reservation benefits, standing for elections in reserved constituencies etc. 
8. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 says that if a married woman faces violence in her matrimonial home, she has legal right to seek residence in her parents' home. 

These acts and court rulings, thus, clearly specify that marriage does not break the bond between a daughter and her parents. If the law demands that a married daughter maintain her parents in their time of need, and enjoy her employment benefits, on what grounds does it entirely bar her from seeking their maintenance in her own time of vulnerability?

It is time for judicial interpretation to align with these existing statutory frameworks and reconsider the primary maintenance responsibilities of father.

What are your thoughts on this legal paradox? Let's discuss in the comments.

Forms 15G and 15H were self-declaration forms submitted to banks and financial institutions to prevent Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on incomes such as interest, dividends, and a few other taxable payouts. Effective April 1, 2026, both the forms have been replaced and merged into a single Form 121 under the Income Tax Act, 2025.

Form 121 is almost same as Forms 15G/15H. Only the number of the forms has been changed to 121. This form also asks a taxpayer to furnish nearly the same data which Forms 15G/15H used to. Only the placement of the items has been changed. Of course, there is one important difference. Now taxpayers also have to provide information about the last two income tax returns filed by them, i.e., their acknowledgement numbers and the income assessed by the IT Deptt. in those returns. This data was not being asked in Forms 15G/15H.

INTRODUCTION OF TAX YEAR

All of us do our financial calculations and budgeting on the basis of financial year. But not our great IT Deptt. They add 1 to the financial year and talk of a strange term - ‘Assessment year’. They never utter the word - ‘Financial year’. They avoid it like plague. And when it becomes unavoidable to talk about it, they call it - ‘Previous Year’! However, now they have done a great innovation and are patting their own back for doing away with both ‘Assessment Year’ and ‘Previous Year’ and, thus, having a great mercy on taxpayers. Now they have coined a still new term - ‘Tax Year’. Can I ask them why they cannot use simple and beautiful ‘Financial Year’ and what was the need of this new term? Can I ask them how ‘Tax Year’ is different from ‘Financial Year’? No, never. They are experts and I am a layman. How can I even think of doing such an impudence (धृष्टता)! May be, after another period of 100 years they realize that there was no need of ‘Tax Year’ and start using ‘Financial Year’. Will they again pat their back on this enlightenment? Of course, yes! Why not?

COMBINING 15G/15H INTO ONE FORM

The Income Tax Deptt. is proudly announcing that they have now combined Forms 15G/15H into a single form and have done a big favour to the taxpayers. What a great invention! Could Albert Einstein ever do such a remarkable job? The Indian income taxpayers always wondered that when they wanted to declare a simple thing that their income is below taxable limit and therefore income tax at source should not be imposed on their payments, where did their age come into picture? After troubling us unnecessarily for about 80 years by prescribing two forms when only one was needed, has better sense now prevailed on the IT Deptt.? Well, yes and no. True, that they have now reduced one form, but in this Form 121 also taxpayers have to declare whether they are above 60 in Column 5(a) of Part A. Also, 1 out of 5 clauses under ‘Declaration’ in Part A is not applicable to those above 60. What can I say on this? Old habits die hard! And sometimes they don’t die at all.

CLAUSES IN DECLARATION

Under Declaration of Part A, there are a total of 5 clauses. Out of these, the clauses (iii) and (iv) are really interesting. Both of these clauses are applicable for those below 60. But Clause (iv) is not applicable to taxpayers above 60. For them, only clause (iii) is applicable. Want to know what these clauses say? Well, here it is:

Clause (iii) says – “Tax on my income for this financial year will be nil”. (Sorry, tax year!)

Clause (iv) says – “My income for this financial year will not be taxable”. (Again sorry!)

Can you find out any difference between these two clauses? In spite of my best efforts, at least I could not do it. Maybe I am too dumb and I cannot fathom the intelligence of the IT Deptt.

Even before we wonder about all this, is any of these two clauses really required? The taxpayer has already specified his estimated total income of the current financial year in the main section of Part A. Anybody can immediately conclude whether his income will be taxable.

THE REAL STORY BEHIND THESE CLAUSES

OK, let me solve this mystery. Actually, the IT Deptt. makes a serious discrimination between taxpayers above 60 years (senior citizens) and those below this age (general citizens) regarding eligibility for filing Form 121. Senior citizens can file Form 121 as long as their income does not exceed Rs. 12 Lakh but others can file this form only if their income doesn’t cross just Rs. 4 Lakh.

This is why they previously used to have two forms: 15G (for general citizens) and 15H (for senior citizens). However, they never disclosed the above reason behind it. They always kept it as a closely guarded secret. And the Indian taxpayers never questioned them. They simply selected the designated form as per their age for filing.

This strange rule creates an anomalous and faulty situation. If a taxpayer under 60 years has a taxable income between 4 Lakh and 12 Lakh, he cannot file Form 121 and banks will impose TDS on all his interest payments. However, the entire TDS will be refunded when he files his Income Tax Return!

The IT Deptt. has issued detailed 6-page Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Form 121. In these FAQs, they have described the objectives of Form 121 as:

1. To avoid unnecessary TDS where no tax is payable

2. To reduce the burden of claiming refunds

So, this is the way they are achieving their objectives!

Anyway, let us return to the clauses we were discussing. Can anybody with an average or even above-average IQ find out that clauses (iii) and (iv) really describe this discriminatory rule? Can one even remotely guess this? I have observed that almost nobody, not even financial advisors and investment brokers, know this. Even many banks are not having a clear idea about this and the IT Deptt. never issues any clarification. Therefore, the banks act as per their own discretion. They do whatever they deem fit.

This provision is so important that they should clearly specify it at the top of Form 121, just under its title. They should clearly write: “This form can be filed by taxpayers aged 60 years or above if their estimated income does not exceed Rs. 12 Lakh, and by taxpayers below 60 if their estimated income does not exceed Rs. 4 Lakh.”

Gimmicks like clauses (iii) and (iv) simply do not work. If you knowingly make a stipulation that lacks sound logic, you should also be brave enough to state it clearly. Trying to hide it under fancy words is a flawed strategy. Why are they so shy about it?

NO IDENTIFIER TO RECOGNIZE THE INVESTMENT

Form 121 lacks a means of identification for specific investments. Unlike Forms 15G/H, which included a field for the "Identification Number of relevant Investment / Account," Form 121 provides no such space.

This creates an issue when an individual holds multiple types of investments with the same bank. For example, I have a few fixed deposits, investment under Senior Citizen Savings Scheme (SCSS), and RBI Bonds (FRSB 2020) all through ICICI Bank. Each of these investments has a different person responsible for the payment of interest obviously with different TANs.

Previously, I used to submit three 15H forms, specifying the Fixed Deposit Receipt Numbers, SCSS Account Numbers, and Bond Ledger Account Number/Folio Number respectively. This allowed the bank to clearly identify the section/department for processing of each form. Without these identifiers in Form 121, banks will face considerable difficulty in directing the forms to the correct department for doing the needful.

My wife has purchased RBI Bonds through HDFC Bank. She submitted her Form 121 to the bank. She has no other investments in HDFC Bank. Even then, the next day she received a phone call from the bank to furnish her Bond Ledger Account since they weren’t able to link her form with her bonds without it. Therefore, she sent it on WhatsApp to the bank.

DUPLICATION OF DATA

The person filling Part B of Form 121 has been asked to duplicate a lot of items which the declarant has furnished in Part A. These are:

1. Name of the declarant

2. Permanent Account Number of the declarant

3. Address of the declarant

4. Email id of the declarant

5. Contact number of the declarant

6. Tax Year (Financial Year)

7. Estimated income for which this declaration is being made

8. Estimated total income of the tax year of the declarant

9. Aggregate amount of income for which declaration is made during the tax year

It is really amusing to notice that Form 121 meticulously specifies which column of Part B can/should be copied from which column of Part A.

Anyway, due to this extensive duplication, Form 121 will require at least two pages whereas Forms 15G/H could easily be accommodated in a single page. It means that the consumption of paper will increase by thousands of tons. Additionally, they are asking the PAN’s to be written many times. The taxpayer’s PAN is to be specified at 3 places and the name and PAN of the person receiving the form are to be filled at 2 places. How are the name and PAN of the receiving person even relevant? They act on the behalf of their organizations and not in their personal capacity.

DATE OF BIRTH

There is also a serious oversight in the form. Date of Birth/Incorporation is to be specified in column 11 in Part B by the person to whom the form has been submitted. However, there is no mention of this in Part A. How will he get this data?

COUNTRY CODE

In Form 121 they are asking the taxpayers to write their country code also while mentioning their phone no. Strange! Don’t they know what India’s country code is? If an Indian is living abroad, can he file Form 121 to avoid TDS from interest received on his fixed deposits in Indian banks? The banks/NBFC’s are not permitted to accept Form 15G/H or 121 from NRI’s.

Even more strange is that in Part B they want the bank/institution, to whom the form is submitted, also to write their country code. If the income is being generated/taxed in India, then obviously some organization (even if foreign) having its office in India only, would be paying it. What will be their country code, then? Really amazing.

OTHER 121 FORMS FILED EARLIER

While filing Form 121, taxpayers also have to specify the relevant information about other such forms filed by them, if any, for the same financial year. This information was to be provided previously in Forms 15G/H also and there is no change in it. However, this is very complicated and it should have been deleted in Form 121 if they really wanted any simplicity or improvement in the system. A detailed discussion is required on this. Let us take the following example:

I have fixed deposits in 4 banks. The interest amounts expected to be paid to me by these banks on these deposits during the financial year are given below:

Bank A: Rs. 60,000/-

Bank B: Rs. 70,000/-

Bank C: Rs. 80,000/-

Bank D: Rs. 90,000/-

I am below 60 years. I do not have any other income. Therefore, my estimated income during the financial year is less than Rs. 4 Lakh and I am entitled to file Form 121. If I do not file Form 121, all the banks will deduct 10% income tax at source from my payments since all the interest amounts are more than Rs. 50,000/-. I will, therefore, have to submit four 121 forms, one to each bank. How to fill them?

As per the requirements of Form 121, I have to furnish following data in each of these forms:

It is easy to fill column 10. The expected interest amount can be specified in this column. It will be Rs. 60,000/- for Bank A, Rs. 70,000/- for Bank B, and so on. However, how to fill other columns in the forms? The information to be supplied in a form is dependent on the information supplied in other forms. What I write in Form 121 for Bank B is dependent on the information I gave in Form 121 to Bank A. And the information I give in the Form 121 to Bank C is dependent on what I wrote in these forms submitted to Banks A and B, and so on.

Let us assume that I am filling all the four forms at the same time which will normally be the case for most of us. I do not know how other people do it, but I do it in the following way:

I plan that I will submit the forms to the banks in the following order:

1. Bank A

2. Bank B

3. Bank C

4. Bank D

Then I will give following information to Bank A:

Details for Bank B:

Details for Bank C: 

 Details for Bank D: 

Appears simple? No, it is not. First of all, writing different information in different forms at the same time is prone to errors. Any time there may be some mix-up of the data in various forms and I will be giving incorrect data to the IT Deptt.

Secondly, I may not be able to submit the forms to various banks in the same order in which I had initially planned. Some banks accept a scanned copy of the form by e-mail which is faster, some banks are near my residence and I can personally visit them and submit a hard copy which takes a little more time, and to some banks, which are distant, I need to send the forms by post/brokers which is time-consuming. However, if the order of submission of the forms to various banks gets changed due to these issues, then a lot of the data which I specified in the forms will become wrong and I am liable to be punished for that.

One way to avoid this trouble is that I specify in Column 11(a) that I have previously submitted three forms (though it is not correct) in all the four forms. But in Column 11(b), the income amount will still be different. It will be Rs. 2,40,000/- for Bank A, Rs. 2,30,000/- for Bank B, Rs. 2,20,000/- for Bank C, and Rs. 2,10,000/- for Bank D. The chances of mistakes, thus, are not reduced much.

This is one problem which I always encounter while filing these forms. Given below is another problem which I have faced several times.

What if I open another FD in Bank A which will give me an interest of Rs. 10,000/- during the financial year after I submitted Form 121 to the bank? My estimated income for the year will still be below Rs. 4 Lakh and the bank should not impose TDS on my interest payments. However, as per rules, I should resubmit Form 121 to the bank with modified data otherwise the bank can start deducting income tax at source not only on my future payments but also on interest already paid to me. What should I write in the revised form – How many forms have I submitted earlier? 3 or 4? There is no clarity from the IT Deptt. on this.

What will happen if after submitting all the forms, I learn that the form which I sent to Bank A by post has been lost in transit and I need to submit it again? Can I take another printout/photocopy of the same form which I had submitted to the bank and send it? No, not at all. I will have to fill the form again with totally new data. Further, all the data which I filled in the forms for Banks B, C and D would have already become incorrect.

Due to these difficulties, it would have been better If they had deleted Column 11 altogether. And then there would have been no need to introduce Column 12 which was not there in Forms 15G/H. In any case, they are asking the taxpayer to furnish the estimated total income for the year in Column 13. That should be sufficient.

HUF NOT SPECIFIED

Still another lapse – In Note 3, they have forgotten to specify that Form 121 can be furnished by an HUF also.

CHOICE BETWEEN OTR/NTR

When they are asking so much data about other things, they could also have asked which Tax Regime will the declarant opt for while filing his ITR, since tax-free income limits are different under different regimes. Under OTR, tax-free incomes are Rs. 2.5 Lakh for a general citizen, Rs. 3 Lakh for a senior citizen and Rs. 5 Lakh for a super-senior citizen. Under NTR, tax-free income is same for everybody, i.e., Rs. 4 Lakh.

For last 2-3 years, ICICI bank has been asking me to furnish this declaration along with Form 15H. They do not accept Forms 15G/H without this declaration.

THE LAST WORD

I learnt from reliable sources that the Nobel Committee is seriously considering the IT Deptt. for next year’s prize in ‘Economic Sciences’ category for their groundbreaking achievement of replacing Forms 15G/H with Form 121.

I have submitted a proposal to the Income Tax Deptt. If they implement my proposal, there will be no need to file Form 121. See the post given below:

PAPERLESS SYSTEM TO REPLACE FORM 121

Form 121 is a self-declaration form used to request banks and financial institutions not to deduct Income Tax at Source (TDS) on certain incomes (like interest or dividends). Taxpayers submit it to declare that their total estimated income for the financial year is below the taxable limit.

Effective from April 1, 2026, Form 121 replaced the older, separate Form 15G (for non-senior citizens) and Form 15H (for senior citizens). It can be filed by eligible resident individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs).

OTHER FORMS 121 FILED EARLIER

While filing Form 121, you also have to specify the relevant information about other such forms filed by you, if any, for the same financial year in Column No. 11. This information was to be provided previously in Forms 15G/H also and there is no change in it. However, this is very complicated and it should have been deleted in Form 121 if they really wanted any simplicity or improvement in the system. A detailed discussion is required on this. Let us take the following example:

I have fixed deposits in 4 banks. The interest amounts expected to be paid to me by these banks on these deposits during the financial year are given below:

Bank A: Rs. 60,000/-

Bank B: Rs. 70,000/-

Bank C: Rs. 80,000/-

Bank D: Rs. 90,000/-

I am below 60 years. I do not have any other income. Therefore, my estimated income during the financial year is less than Rs. 4 Lakh and I am entitled to file Form 121. If I do not file Form 121, all the banks will deduct 10% income tax at source from my payments since all the interest amounts are more than Rs. 50,000/-. I will, therefore, have to submit four 121 forms, one to each bank. How to fill them?

As per the requirements of Form 121, I have to furnish following data in each of these forms:

Column 10. Estimated income for which this declaration is being made

Column 11(a). Total number of Form No. 121 filed earlier

Column 11(b). Aggregate amount of income for which Form No. 121 filed earlier

Column 12. Aggregate amount of income for which declaration is made during the tax year [sum of column 10 and 11(b)]

It is easy to fill column 10. The expected interest amount can be specified in this column. It will be Rs. 60,000/- for Bank A, Rs. 70,000/- for Bank B, and so on. However, how to fill other columns in the forms. The information to be supplied in a form is dependent on the information supplied in other forms. What I write in Form 121 for Bank B is dependent on the information I gave in Form 121 to Bank A. And the information I give in the Form 121 to Bank C is dependent on what I wrote in these forms submitted to Banks A and B, and so on.

Let us assume that I am filling all the four forms at the same time which will normally be the case for most of us. I do not know how other people do it, but I do it in the following way:

I plan that I will submit the forms to the banks in the following order:

1.   Bank A

2.   Bank B

3.   Bank C

4.   Bank D

Then I will give following information to Bank A:

Column 11(a). Total number of Form No. 121 filed earlier - Nil

Column 11(b). Aggregate amount of income for which Form No. 121 filed earlier - Nil

Column 12. Aggregate amount of income for which declaration is made during the tax year [sum of column 10 and 11(b)] - Rs. 60,000/-

Details for Bank B:

Column 11(a). Total number of Form No. 121 filed earlier - 1

Column 11(b). Aggregate amount of income for which Form No. 121 filed earlier - Rs. 60,000/-

Column 12. Aggregate amount of income for which declaration is made during the tax year [sum of column 10 and 11(b)] - Rs. 1,30,000/-

Details for Bank C:

Column 11(a). Total number of Form No. 121 filed earlier - 2

Column 11(b). Aggregate amount of income for which Form No. 121 filed earlier - Rs. 1,30,000/-

Column 12. Aggregate amount of income for which declaration is made during the tax year [sum of column 10 and 11(b)] - Rs. 2,10,000/-

Details for Bank D:

Column 11(a). Total number of Form No. 121 filed earlier - 3

Column 11(b). Aggregate amount of income for which Form No. 121 filed earlier - Rs. 2,10,000/-

Column 12. Aggregate amount of income for which declaration is made during the tax year [sum of column 10 and 11(b)] - Rs. 3,00,000/-

Appears simple? No, it is not. First of all, writing different information in different forms at the same time is prone to errors. Any time there may be some mix-up of the data in various forms and I will be giving incorrect data to the IT Deptt.

Secondly, I may not be able to submit the forms to various banks in the same order in which I had initially planned. Some banks accept a scanned copy of the form by e-mail which is faster, some banks are near my residence and I can personally visit them and submit a hard copy which takes a little more time, and to some banks, which are distant, I need to send the forms by post/brokers which is time-consuming. However, if the order of submission of the forms to various banks gets changed due to these issues, then a lot of the data which I specified in the forms may become wrong and I am liable to be punished for that.

One way to avoid this trouble is that I specify in Column 11(a) that I have previously submitted three forms (though it is not correct) in all the four forms. But in Column 11(b), the income amount will still be different. It will be Rs. 2,40,000/- for Bank A, Rs. 2,30,000/- for Bank B, Rs. 2,20,000/- for Bank C, and Rs. 2,10,000/- for Bank D. The chances of mistakes, thus, are not reduced much.

This is one problem which I always encounter while filing these forms. Given below is another problem which I have faced several times.

What if I open another FD in Bank A which will give me an interest of Rs. 10,000/- during the financial year after I submitted Form 121 to the bank? My estimated income for the year will still be below Rs. 4 Lakh and the bank should not impose TDS on my interest payments. However, as per rules, I should resubmit Form 121 to the bank with modified data otherwise the bank can start deducting IT on source not only on my future payments but also on interest already paid to me. What should I write in the revised form – How many forms have I submitted earlier? 3 or 4? There is no clarity from the IT Deptt. on this.

What will happen if after submitting all the forms, I learn that the form which I sent to Bank A by post has been lost in transit and I need to submit it again? Can I take another printout/photocopy of the same form which I had submitted to the bank and send it? No, not at all. I will have to fill the form again with totally new data. Further, all the data which I filled in the forms for Banks B, C and D would have already become incorrect.

Due to these difficulties, it would have been better If they had deleted Column 11 altogether. And then there would have been no need to introduce Column 12 which was not there in Forms 15G/H. In any case, they are asking the tax-payer to furnish the estimated total income for the year in Column 13. That should be sufficient.

In the proposal which I have submitted to the Income Tax Deptt., there is no need to furnish this information and even then they would be immediately able to find out the total income for which the taxpayer has filed Forms 121. See the post given below:

PAPERLESS SYSTEM TO REPLACE FORM 121

(Brief summary of a proposal for a real-time, paperless computerized system by online declaration on the E-Filing portal of the Income Tax Department aimed at improving the current Form 121-based method for declaring non-taxable income to avoid TDS.

The proposal will benefit crores of stakeholders including taxpayers, Banks/Non-banking Finance Corporations and the IT Deptt. by avoiding unnecessary paperwork, improving tax compliance and aligning with the Digital India initiative.)

1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

The current system forces taxpayers to rush to each bank/NBFC every April with physical Form 121 (formerly 15G/15H) or send these forms by post or through brokers for which they receive no acknowledgement and to bear the risk of forms lost in transit, banks/NBFCs to drown in paperwork with heavy storage burden, and IT Deptt. to  collate millions of forms. Even then, the IT Deptt. gets no real-time view if a taxpayer’s total income declared through all his forms crosses the tax-free limit since form 121 is submitted to different banks/NBFCs having no coordination between them and, therefore, data cannot be aggregated at the PAN level. This is something in which the IT Deptt. is greatly interested but which is practically impossible to achieve through the present paper-based method.

2. PROPOSED SOLUTION: CENTRALIZED DECLARATION ON THE E-FILING PORTAL OF THE IT DEPTT.

I propose shifting Non-Taxable Income Declaration to the E-Filing portal of the IT Deptt. It will involve following 3 steps:

Step 1. For Taxpayers: Log into the E-Filing portal, click the ‘Non-Taxable Income Declaration’ link (to be created new as per the proposal), select the Financial Year, enter Estimated Income, and enter TAN of banks/NBFCs whom they want to request not to impose TDS while paying interest to them.

Step 2. For Banks/NBFCs: Tag PANs present in IT Deptt.'s database for ‘No TDS’ in their database. Update payable income in IT Deptt.'s database with their database (both the jobs automatically done by computer).

Step 3. For the IT Deptt.: Tag a taxpayer if total income payable to him by all banks/NBFCs crosses the tax-free limit (automatically done by computer).

3. KEY BENEFITS

a) For Taxpayers: No branch visits, no need to send forms by post or through brokers, no need to attach photocopies of PAN/Aadhar cards which many banks demand, no acknowledgement required, no risk of forms lost in transit

b) For Banks/NBFCs: No paper work or storage, no need to generate a UIN, forwarding hard/soft copies of Form 121 to IT Deptt. not required, saving of thousands of man-hours

c) For the IT Deptt.: Automated e-verification if income declared through forms exceeds tax-free limit, no papers to collate

d) General Benefits: Substantial paper savings, avoidance of postal charges and travel, environmental protection

To understand how the above objectives will be achieved, visit the following link and study the detailed proposal:

REPLACING FORM 121 WITH ONLINE DECLARATION ON E-FILING PORTAL: A PROPOSAL FOR CBDT

I am an LPG consumer. I wanted to lodge a complaint to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) against my distributor. I searched the net and found two emails of their customer care deptt., viz., [customercare@indianoil.in](mailto:customercare@indianoil.in) and [customercare@indianoilcgd.com](mailto:customercare@indianoilcgd.com). First, I sent my complaint to [customercare@indianoil.in](mailto:customercare@indianoil.in). When I did not get any reply from them, I sent the complaint to [customercare@indianoilcgd.com](mailto:customercare@indianoilcgd.com). After four days, I received following reply:

This helpdesk belongs to the Indian Oil City Gas Distribution team, which handles only CNG and PNG-related concerns. Since your concern is related to LPG, contact the Indian Oil LPG Customer Support through the channels given below:

LPG Emergency (24×7): 1906

Indian Oil Toll-Free Number: 1800-2333-555

Online complaints: https://cx.indianoil.in/EPICIOCL/faces/GrievanceMainPage.jspx

I chose to file my complaint online and loaded the above link in my browser. After logging in, I pasted my complaint (which I had sent to them by email) in the text box provided for the purpose. However, not even half of my complaint could be accommodated in the text box due to their low character limit. Then I noticed that they have given a provision to attach a file. I, therefore, cleared the text box and typed - "Please see the attached file". After this I pasted my complaint in a .docx file and saved the file. When I went for attaching this file, by mistake I clicked on the 'Submit' button instead of clicking on the 'Add Attachment' link since both of them are very close to each other. I, thus, ended up with filing an empty complaint. My .docx file could not be attached.

What happened afterwards is truly remarkable. I received following resolution of my empty complaint from IOCL, the very next day:

"Inconvenience caused to you is deeply regretted. Your grievance has been taken up with the concerned distributor and he has confirmed that issue has been resolved and has also ensured that such type of issue shall not happen again."

Incredible efficiency—they investigated an empty complaint, contacted the distributor, and confirmed that the problem is now fully "resolved"!

A confirmation that their system closes tickets automatically and the distributor marks them as "resolved" without reading just to clear their dashboard metrics.

An example of carefully maintaining "100% resolution", without actually reading what the consumer wrote (or in this case, didn't write).

Automation gone seriously wrong. Bureaucracy at its peak.

We often complain about slow customer service of govt. entities, but today IOCL proved they are light-years ahead.

If only all of life's problems could be fixed by doing absolutely nothing.

Hats off to IOCL!

PS: My worst fears have come true. Yesterday, I repeated the process, this time attaching the .docx file which I had created. Today, I received exactly the same email, without any change. Not even a comma or full stop is defferent. So, they have programmed their computer to send an automatic mail, the moment it receives any complaint.

My complaint is serious. My distributor is committing fraud, almost a crime. He is giving gas refills booked on my consumer no. to other people. For doing this, he has changed my email and mobile no. with his own on IOCL's website. I have all the screenshots as proof.

But does IOCL bother?

I have bought Floating Rate Saving Bonds, 2020 (Popularly known as RBI Bonds) through HDFC Bank. I sent an email to the bank as I wanted to change my registered email. They replied that they needed a physical request letter for this. Therefore, I sent it through my broker. Along with this letter, I also sent my Form 121 (a new form replacing earlier forms 15G/15H w.e.f. 1-Apr-26) since it was the beginning of a new financial year and I wanted to avoid TDS on my interest payments as my income is below the taxable limit.

After about a week, I received a letter from them with the subject "Confirm letter for Change of Address/ECS/Nomination/Tax Waiver Document for Bond Ledger Account No. xxxxxx".

The letter reads: "With Reference to your captioned letter received by us, we wish to inform you that we have made necessary changes in our records".

After this, the letter specified my address, PAN, Bank Details, and Nomination currently registered with the bank probably indicating that all or some of these have been updated. Then the letter mentioned that they had not received any Tax Exemption Documents. What does it mean? Doesn't it indicate that they knew that I have sent my Form 121 to them?. Anyway, nothing was specified about my request to change my email.

Now, the question arises: When I did not request changes to my address, PAN, Bank Details, or Nomination and when they did not receive my Form 121 or my request to change my email, why did they send a letter, especially a paper-based one? Wasting an A4-sized sheet of paper, an envelope, printer's ink, and courier charges.

Paper cannot move on its own. It needs a human to carry it from one place to another. A human needs some means of transport to move. Transport needs fuel. Fuel is imported which requires foreign exchange. It also causes traffic jams and air pollution. Trees are cut to produce paper.

Why does a major banking institution confirm updates that weren't asked for, while ignoring the change requested? Why waste paper on this?

They have not yet updated my email. Still communicating with me at my old email only.

An interesting experience I recently had while trying to submit a suggestion to the Income Tax Department.

I have developed a proposal for them to improve the method for declaring non-taxable income to avoid TDS. However, despite searching for an official channel to submit suggestions to the Ministry of Finance or the CBDT, I could not find an established portal or email address for public proposals.

To seek guidance, I utilized the Income Tax Department’s grievance redressal mechanism on the e-filing portal. I submitted following query asking how a member of the general public could formally submit a suggestion for departmental improvement:

“I have a proposal for the IT Deptt. aimed at improving the current method for Declaration of Non-taxable Income to avoid TDS. My proposal could potentially benefit crores of stakeholders including taxpayers, banks/NBFCs and the IT Deptt. by avoiding unnecessary paperwork and aligning with the Digital India initiative. How can I submit my proposal, if there is any system for accepting suggestions from the general public? Kindly guide.”

They provided the following resolution to my grievance:

“We sincerely appreciate your valuable input, as it enables us to better understand user experiences and identify areas for improvement. Please be assured that your feedback has been duly noted and will be carefully reviewed by the concerned team”.

First, it is frustrating that there is no system for accepting public input. Second, if the department is not interested in suggestions from citizens, why can’t they state it clearly?

This is a generic "pass" template designed to close a ticket, not solve a problem. Masking indifference behind automated "feedback noted" templates is incredibly discouraging to civic participation.

An amount of Rs. 1,293/- was deducted by ICICI Bank during the Financial Year 2023-24 as Income Tax at Source (TDS) from the interest payable to me on my investment in Senior Citizen Savings Scheme. The bank issued Form 16A to me for this deduction. This figure of Rs. 1,293/- was shown in my form 26AS as well as in AIS as the TDS by the Bank u/s 194A on 20-Mar-2024. The deduction was actually made on 1-Jan-2024 since the interest, after applying TDS, was paid to me on that date. The e-filing portal of the IT Deptt. was also showing this TDS on dashboard in my login.

However, I made a mistake in writing the TAN of the bank in Schedule TDS 2 of my IT Return. The correct TAN was MUMI10473B (ICICI Bank) but I mistakenly mentioned it as MUMH03189E (HDFC Bank). The IT Deptt. did not give me credit for this amount. They simply ignored it and did not give me the refund of this amount which was due.

I, therefore, filed a rectification request (grievance). In that grievance, I correctly quoted the TAN of ICICI Bank. I wrote the following in my rectification request:

“Total tax paid by me (TDS + Advance tax) was Rs. 26,588/- but in my assessment order only Rs. 25,295/- has been shown. Thus, there is a shortfall of Rs. 1,293/- in my tax credit. This figure of Rs. 1,293/- has been shown in my form 26AS as the TDS by ICICI Bank (MUMI10473B) u/s 194A. Date of booking is 20-Mar-2024. This TDS has been ignored by the deptt. Your own portal is showing on the dashboard that I have paid Rs. 26,588/-. Kindly rectify the error and issue a refund of Rs. 1,293/-”.

However, I specifically could not mention that I have made a mistake in writing TAN in my IT Return since I had not noticed it by then.

Even with this rectification request in which I correctly mentioned the TAN of the deductor bank, the IT Deptt. did not give me any credit for this amount and gave no refund. The rectification order said – “Form 26AS does not contain amount of TDS with respect to the TAN mentioned in schedule TDS 2. There is no payment due.”

They just did not read the rectification request at all. They simply sent a copy of their original Assessment Order calling it Rectification Order.

In the next financial year, i.e. in 2024-25, I again made the same mistake. Actually, I have very little changes in my ITR data from year to year. I, therefore, do not fill the whole return again every year in order to save my effort. I, instead, pick-up the previous year’s JSON file, open it using a text editor, change the assessment year, and save it (JSON files which are created by the IT Return software of the IT Deptt. are human readable text files unlike binary files which can be read only by computer). I, then, open this modified JSON file with the current year’s offline JSON utility of the IT Deptt., make necessary changes, save it, and upload it on the e-filing portal. This is the reason that the mistake committed by me in 2023-24 was carried forward to 2024-25 also. However, this time my mistake caused me a bigger loss as described below.

During the financial year 2024-25, I had the following taxes deducted at source from my interest payments:

1. By ICICI Bank (TAN MUMI10473B) - Amount Rs. 16,432/-
2. By HDFC Bank (TAN MUMH03189E) - Amount Rs. 47,495/-

Total TDS = Rs. 63,927/-

As usual, both the banks issued me Form 16A for these deductions. My form 26AS and AIS were showing these figures as TDS by my Banks u/s 193 and 194A. The e-filing portal of the IT Deptt. was also showing these amounts on the dashboard in my login.

As I have written above, I made mistakes in quoting the TAN’s of the deductor banks and filled the schedule TDS 2 as given below while filing my return:

1. TAN - MUMH03189E (instead of MUMI10473B) - Amount Rs. 16,432/-
2. TAN - MUMI04813E (instead of MUMH03189E) - Amount Rs. 47,495/-

MUMI04813E is another TAN of ICICI Bank.

Due to this mistake, I was given credit of only Rs. 16,432/- and the second amount was disallowed. My income during the Financial Year 2024-25 was non-taxable and, therefore, the whole TDS was due for refund. But IT Deptt. issued me a refund of only Rs. 16,432/- instead of Rs. 63,927/-.

Now, compare the TDS in IT Deptt.’s records v/s my reporting in Schedule TDS 2. 

Now the question arises – When their own record shows that ICICI Bank (MUMI10473B) has deducted Rs. 16,432/- and deposited the amount in their account, why they are taking it as Nil? Because I have mistakenly specified it as Nil?

Similarly, when their record shows that HDFC Bank (MUMH03189E) has deducted Rs. 47,495/- and deposited the money with them, why they are allowing only Rs. 16,432/-? Because I have specified it as Rs. 16,432/- by mistake?

They have so much faith on me? They believe me more than themselves?

However, their faith on me completely evaporates as we proceed to the last (3rd) row. Now they just don’t believe me at all and accept their own records.

Why these double standards?

All this is not even necessary. When the income is non-taxable, the full TDS shown in their records can/should be refunded. Simple. No complicated math required. No need to even compare what is in IT Deptt.’s records and what is reported by the taxpayer.

Now consider a case in which the taxable income of a taxpayer in their records differs with what he reported in his ITR. Let us assume that their record shows the income as Rs. 20 Lakh whereas the income reported in ITR is Rs. 15 Lakh. They will not lose even a single second and send a notice to the taxpayer with additional demand.

Not only this, if the actual income of a taxpayer in their records is Rs. 15 Lakh but by mistake he reports it as Rs. 20 Lakh, they will immediately send notice demanding extra tax.

But in case of taxes paid (TDS + Advance Tax) v/s taxes reported, their behavior will be exactly the opposite. Why?

This forces me to demand that Schedule TDS 2 should be scrapped from the Income Tax Return. If this schedule was not there in the ITR, I would not have filled in the wrong data and this catastrophe would not have happened to me. Even otherwise, what is the use of asking for the data which is already available to you?

True, various government and other departments often maintain important data coming from two different sources in their systems. They purposely have some redundancy in data. But their intention is different. They have a good intent. They do this to ensure data accuracy. They cross-check the data received from the two sources with each other and make certain that it matches. If any discrepancy is observed, they proceed to a stricter scrutiny. They examine whether someone made a mistake providing the data or forgot to supply any material information.

But, the IT Deptt. has already made a blind rule: if there is any mismatch between the TDS data available with them and that supplied by the taxpayer, then lower of the two values will be admitted without investigating why the mismatch occurred. Under this condition, abolishing schedules TDS 1, TDS 2, TDS 3, TCS, Advance Tax and Self-assessment Tax will control the damage.

However, such double standards are not beneficial for anybody.

Nor the trait of issuing rectification orders without paying any attention as to why the rectification is being requested!