New matrimonial portal, mobile app launched

New Delhi, Feb 1: The budget is a little more demanding of the non-resident Indian. Firstly, to be categorized a non-resident, an Indian now has to stay abroad for 240 days, against 182 previously. In other words, an Indian national, to claim the non-resident status, can’t stay in India for 120 days or more in a year.

“We've made changes in Income Tax Act where if an Indian citizen stays out of the country for more than 182 days, he becomes non-resident,” said Revenue Secy Ajay Bhushan Pandey. “Now in order to become non-resident, he has to stay out of the country for 240 days.”

The second rule is more deadly: a non-resident Indian, who is not taxed in the foreign country, will become taxable in India.

“If any Indian citizen is not a resident of any country in the world, he'll be deemed to be a resident of India and his worldwide income will be taxed,” said Pandey.

"It's a very big disadvantage for Indians residing overseas only to save on tax,"  said Dinesh Kanabar of Dhruva Advisors. He expects that many Indians stay abroad in countries, where the income tax is low or nil such as Dubai. Now they will be taxed in India if they are in the income tax bracket.

For Indians, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman revised income tax rats and proposed new tax slabs.

The new income tax rates will, however, not allow exemptions under Section 80C. Home loan exemption, insurance exemptions, the standard deduction will also not stay under the regime.

"The new tax regime will be optional and the taxpayers will be given the choice to either remain in the old regime with exemptions and deductions or opt for the new reduced tax rate without those exemptions," Sitharaman said while unveiling Budget.

Bengaluru, Jul 9: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Thursday said the Covid-19 situation was “getting out of control a little” in some parts of the state, but assured citizens that authorities were taking necessary steps. 

“In some districts, it’s getting out of control a little. But the district administration and police are working day and night,” Yediyurappa said before the Cabinet meeting where the Covid-19 situation will be discussed. 

Speculation is rife that the government might consider stricter measures to curb the movement of people to try arresting the rising number of Covid-19 cases. 

Later in the day, Yediyurappa is slated to inspect the Bengaluru International Exhibition Centre, which has been converted into a Covid Care Centre with 10,000 beds. The chief minister said he had ordered “immediate” arrangement of more ambulances for Bengaluru, where cases are rapidly shooting up. 

“A team from the Centre had come. They’ve made some observations and they also appreciated us for some of the things we’ve done,” he added. 

On Friday, Yediyurappa has convened a meeting of all Bengaluru ministers, legislators, MPs and councillors to discuss the Covid-19 pandemic in the city.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.