Alwar lynching: Cops give clean chit to 6 miscreants named by victim Pehlu Khan

Ayodhya, Feb 18: A senior Supreme Court lawyer has written to the Ram temple trust on behalf of a group of Muslims in Ayodhya, asking that five acres of land around the demolished Babri Masjid where a graveyard is situated be spared for the sake of 'sanatan dharma'.

The letter, written by advocate M R Shamshad, is addressed to all 10 trustees of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra.

Shamshad said according to Muslims, there is a graveyard known as 'Ganj Shahidan' around the demolished Babri Masjid where 75 Muslims who lost their lives in the 1885 riots in Ayodhya were buried.

"There is a mention of this in Faizabad Gazetteer also," he said.

"The central government has not considered the issue not using the grave-yard of Muslims for constructing the grand temple of Lord Ram. It has violated 'dharma'," the letter stated.

"In view of religious scriptures of 'sanatan dharma', you need to consider whether the temple of Lord Ram can have foundation on the graves of Muslims? This is a decision that the management of the trust has to take," it said.

"With all humility and respect to Lord Ram, I request you, not to use the land of about four to five acres in which the graves of Muslims are there around the demolished mosque," the letter added.

Those owning a single house in joint names would continue to file their income tax returns (ITRs) in much simpler ITR-1 (Sahaj) and ITR-4 forms (Sugam) for assessment year 2020-21 with the government issuing a clarification in this regard.

The clarification has come days after the government modified the eligibility for filing the returns in ITR-1 and ITR-4, stating that those owning a property jointly, spending Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel and paying electricity bill of Rs 1 lakh in a year would not be able to file returns in the simpler forms.

They would have to file their returns with much more detailed information in other specified forms.

Following the changes in the eligibility for filing returns in the two forms, concerns were raised over it with taxpayers claiming that it will cause huge hardship for them.

"The matter has been examined and it has been decided to allow a person, who jointly owns a single house property, to file his/her return of income in ITR-1 or ITR-4 Form, as may be applicable, if he/she meets the other conditions," a Finance Ministry statement said.

"It has also been decided to allow a person, who is required to file return due to fulfilment of one or more conditions specified in the seventh proviso to section 139(1) of the Act, to file his/her return in ITR-1 Form," it added.

Tax practitioners welcomed the government’s move of going back to the previous position.

"This is a welcome clarification allowing middle class taxpayers owning a single house property to file simpler ITR forms, 1 and 4, and not the detailed ITR forms even if they own house property in joint names," said Shailesh Kumar, Director, Nangia Andersen Consulting.

It may be noted that taxpayers holding multiple house properties would have to file more detailed return forms.

In the major changes notified earlier this month by the Income-Tax department, individual taxpayers were disallowed to file return either in ITR-1 or ITR 4 if he or she was a joint-owner in house property.

In another change, those who deposited more than Rs 1 crore in bank account or spent Rs 2 lakh on foreign travel or paid Rs 1 lakh on electricity bill in a financial year were also barred from using the easy-to-fill return forms.

"By today's clarification, the government has maintained status quo. Now, the taxpayers can continue filing their returns in the same fashion in which they did last year," said Naveen Wadhwa, Deputy General Manager (DGM), Taxmann.

New Delhi, Jun 19: RJD and AAP were not invited to the all-party meeting called by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday to discuss the situation at the India-China border after 20 Indian soldiers were killed in a "violent face-off," leaving the parties fuming.

Top RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav criticised the government for not inviting the party to the meeting, asking on Twitter late Thursday night, "Just wish to know the criteria for inviting political parties for tomorrow's (Friday's) all-party meet on Galwan Valley. I mean the grounds of inclusion/exclusion. Because our party hasn't received any message so far."

AAP's Rajya Sabha leader Sanjay Singh joined the chorus, "there is a strange ego-driven government at the centre. AAP has a government in Delhi and is the main opposition in Punjab. We have four MPs. But on a vital subject, AAP's views are not needed? The country is waiting for what the Prime Minister will say at the meeting."

Sources said the government has set a criteria to invite only parties with five or more MPs in Parliament for the digital meet, where the Prime Minister will brief the top leaders of parties and hear their views on the way ahead. There are at least 27 parties in the Parliament, which have less than five members, while 17 have more than five members or more than five MPs.

Interestingly, RJD has five MPs in Rajya Sabha and its senior MP Manoj K Jha shared the Rajya Sabha website link on Twitter, which showed the party has five MPs. "We have not been invited and the government's bogus argument has been exposed," Jha said.

CPI leaders said General Secretary D Raja received a call from Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inviting him to the meeting and with a message that the Prime Minister's Office would coordinate but there was no follow-up after that.

"Exclusion of AAP and RJD in the all-party meet on a National debate does not augment well. AAP is ruling Delhi and has its CM. Why should people of Delhi be kept out in such an important debate on National integrity and Sovereignty?" former NCP MP Majeed Memon tweeted.

During the all-party meeting on COVID-19 too, the government had not called all parties with representation in Parliament to the all-party meeting in April and had set five MPs as a benchmark to be invited.

Raja had then written a letter to Modi demanding that the government should not get into "technicalities" and discuss the issue with all parties in Parliament.