PM Modi unveils word's tallest Statue of Unity in honour of Patel, flays 'political prism'

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.

Mumbai, Jun 22: After downgrading India's outlook to negative from stable, Fitch Ratings on Monday revised the outlook on nine Indian banks to negative.

The outlook on the Long-Term Issuer Default Ratings (IDR) was revised to negative from stable due to the banks' high dependence on the Centre to re-capitalise them.

Accordingly, the IDR outlook of the Export-Import Bank of India, the State Bank of India, the Bank of Baroda, the Bank of Baroda (New Zealand), the Bank of India, the Canara Bank, the Punjab National Bank, ICICI Bank and Axis Bank Ltd have been downgraded to negative.

"At the same time, Fitch has affirmed IDBI Bank Limited's (IDBI) IDR while maintaining the outlook at negative," Fitch said in a statement.

The rating actions follow Fitch's revision of the outlook on the 'BBB-' rating on India to negative from stable on June 18, due to the impact of the escalating coronavirus pandemic on India's economy.

"The IDRs for all the above Indian banks are support-driven and anchored to their respective SRFs," the statement said.

"They are based on Fitch's assessment of high to moderate probability of extraordinary state support for these banks, which takes into account our assessment of the sovereign's ability and propensity to provide extraordinary support."

According to the statement, the negative outlook on India's sovereign rating reflects an increasing strain on the state's ability to provide extraordinary support, due to the sovereign's limited fiscal space and the significant deterioration in fiscal metrics due to challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic.

"The rating action does not affect the banks' Viability Rating (VR). EXIM does not have a VR as its role as a policy bank makes an assessment of its standalone credit profile less meaningful."

New Delhi, Jan 14: The curative petitions of Vinay Sharma and Mukesh, who were sentenced to death in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, was on Tuesday rejected by a five-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice N.V. Ramana.

In a three-page order, the Bench concluded, after an in chamber consideration that began about 1.45 p.m., that there was no merit in their pleas to spare them from the gallows.

“We have gone through the curative petitions and relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra. Hence, the curative petitions are dismissed,” the court held.

Curative is a rare remedy devised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra case in 2002. A party can take only two limited grounds in a curative petition - one, he was not heard by the court before the adverse judgment was passed, and two, the judge was biased. A curative plea, which follows the dismissal of review petition, is the last legal avenue open for convicts in the Supreme Court. Sharma was the first among the four convicts to file a curative.

The Bench also rejected their pleas to stay the execution of their death sentence and for oral hearing in open court.

Besides Justice Ramana, the Bench comprised Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.

Curative petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by both convicts on January 9. The petitions had come just days after a Delhi sessions court schedulled the execution of all the four convicts in Tihar jail on January 22.

Sharma and Mukesh, in separate curative petitions, argued that there was a “sea change” in the death penalty jurisprudence since their convictions. Carrying out the death sentence on such changed circumstances would be a “gross miscarriage of justice”.

In his plea, Sharma said the Court had commuted the death penalty in several rape and murder cases since 2017, when it first confirmed the death penalty to the Nirbhaya convicts.

“fter the pronouncement of judgment in 2017, there have been as many as 17 cases involving rape and murder in which various three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have commuted the sentence of death,” the petition contended.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by Akshay Singh, another of the four four condemned men, to review its May 5, 2017 judgment confirming the death penalty. It also refused his plea to grant him three weeks' time to file a mercy petition before the President of India.

A Bench led by Justice R. Banumathi had said it was open for the Nirbhaya case convicts to avail whatever time the law prescribes for the purpose of filing a mercy plea.

Akshay (33), Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Sharma (24) had brutally gang-raped a 23-year-old paramedical student in a moving bus on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012. She died of her injuries a few days later.

The case shocked the nation and led to the tightening of anti-rape laws. Rape, especially gang rape, is now a capital crime.

One of the accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar jail. A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board. He was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.