Mamata claims people took money from BJP for perpetrating violence over CAA

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.

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

May 20: Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli on Tuesday asserted that Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura belong to Nepal and vowed to "reclaim" them from India through political and diplomatic efforts, as his Cabinet endorsed a new political map showing the three areas as Nepalese territory.

Addressing Parliament, Oli said the territories belong to Nepal “but India has made it a disputed area by keeping its Army there”. “Nepalis were blocked from going there after India stationed its Army,” he said.

“India has deployed its troops in Kalapani since 1962 and our rulers in the past hesitated to raise the issue,” he said, asserting, “We will reclaim and get them back.”

The prime minister asserted that the Nepal government will make political and diplomatic efforts to reclaim the territory.

Oli also expressed the hope that India will “follow the path of truth, shown by Satya Meva Jayate, which is mentioned in the Ashoka Chakra, the national symbol of India”.

The prime minister’s remarks came a day after the Cabinet headed by him endorsed a new political map showing Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura under Nepal’s territory.

Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali said the official map of Nepal will soon be made public by the Ministry of Land Management. The move announced by Gyawali came weeks after he said that efforts were on to resolve the border issue with India through diplomatic initiatives.

Nepal''s ruling Nepal Communist Party lawmakers have also tabled a special resolution in Parliament demanding return of Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh to Nepal.

The Lipulekh pass is a far western point near Kalapani, a disputed border area between Nepal and India. Both India and Nepal claim Kalapani as an integral part of their territory - India as part of Uttarakhand’s Pithoragarh district and Nepal as part of Dharchula district.

Gyawali last week summoned the Indian Ambassador Vinay Mohan Kwatra and handed over a diplomatic note to him to protest against the construction of a key road connecting the Lipulekh pass with Dharchula in Uttarakhand.

India has said that the recently-inaugurated road section in Pithoragarh district in Uttarakhand lies completely within its territory. Indian Army chief Gen MM Naravane last week said that there were reasons to believe that Nepal objected to India''s newly-inaugurated road linking Lipulekh Pass with Dharchula in Uttarakhand at the behest of "someone else", in an apparent reference to a possible role by China on the matter.

He said there was no dispute whatsoever between India and Nepal in the area and road laid was very much within the Indian side.

The 80-KM-long strategically crucial road at a height of 17,000 KM along the border with China in Uttarakhand was thrown open by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh earlier this month.

Nepal has raised objection to the inauguration of the road, saying the "unilateral act" was against the understanding reached between the two countries on resolving the border issues. China on Tuesday said the Kalapani border issue is between India and Nepal as it hoped that the two neighbours could refrain from "unilateral actions" and properly resolve their disputes through friendly consultations.

After the endorsement of Nepal’s new map senior ruling party leader and member of Nepal Communist Party Standing Committee Ganesh Shah said the new move may escalate unnecessary tension between Nepal and India at a time when the country is fighting the coronavirus.

"The Nepal government should soon start a dialogue with India to resolve the matter through political and diplomatic moves," he said.

The new map includes 335-km land area including Limpiyadhura in the Nepalese territory.

The new map was drawn on the basis of the Sugauli Treaty of 1816 signed between Nepal and then the British India government and other relevant documents, which suggests Limpiyadhura, from where the Kali river originated, is Nepal''s border with India, The Kathmandu Post quoted an official at the Ministry of Land Reform and Management as saying.

India and Nepal are at a row after the Indian side issued a new political map incorporating Kalapani and Lipulekh on its side of the border in October last year.

The tension further escalated after India inaugurated the road link connecting Kailash Mansarovar, a holy pilgrimage site situated at Tibet, China, that passes through the territory belonging to Nepal.