Separate lanes for VIPs, judges at toll plazas across India: Court orders NHA

Mumbai, Feb 5: Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray on Wednesday said there was no need to fear the Citizenship Amendment Act, but asserted his government will not allow the proposed National Register of Citizens to be implemented as it would "impact people of all religions".

Throwing out Bangladeshi and Pakistani migrants out of the country was an old demand of the Shiv Sena, the chief minister said in the third and concluding part of his interview to party mouthpiece 'Saamana'.

"I can confidentally say the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) is not meant to throw Indian citizens out of the country. But, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is going to impact Hindus as well," the Sena president said.

India has the right to know the number of minorities from neighbouring nations who applied for Indian citizenship after being persecuted in their home countries, he said.

"When they come here, will they get homes under the 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana'? What about employment and education of their children? All these issues are important and we have the right to know," hesaid in the interview to Saamana's executive editor and Sena MP Sanjay Raut.

"As chief minister, I should know where will these people be relocated in my state. Our own people don't have adequate housing. Will these people go to Delhi, Bengaluru or Kashmir, since Article 370 is now scrapped?" he wondered.

Several Kashmiri Pandit families are staying like refugees in their own country. The CAA is not to throw citizens out of the country, Thackeray said.

"However, the NRC will impact Hindus and Muslims and the state government will not allow it to be implemented," he asserted.

Under the NRC, all citizens will have to prove their citizenship. In Assam, 19 lakh people could not prove their citizenship. Of these, 14 lakh are Hindus, Thackeray claimed.

In a veiled attack on his cousin and MNS chief Raj Thackeray, who will lead a rally in support of the CAA and NRC in Mumbai on February 9, the chief minister said the NRC is not yet a reality and there is no need for a 'morcha' in support of or against it.

"If the NRC is enforced, those who are supporting it will also be affected," he said.

Under the NRC, even Hindus will have to prove their citizenship. "I will not allow the law to be enacted. Whether I am chief minister or not, I will not allow injustice to anybody," he said.

The chief minister also took a veiled dig at the Centre's decision to give the Padma Shri award to Pakistani-origin musician Adnan Sami.

"A migrant is a migrant. You can't honour him with the Padma award. Throwing out illegal migrants was the stand of (late Shiv Sena supremo) Balasaheb Thackeray," he said without naming anyone.

New Delhi, May 31: India registered its highest single-day spike of COVID-19 cases on Sunday with 8,380 new infections reported in the last 24 hours, taking the country's tally to 1,82,143, while the death toll rose to 5,164, according to the Union Health Ministry.

The number of active COVID-19 cases stood to 89,995, while 86,983 people have recovered and one patient has migrated, it said.

"Thus, around 47.75 per cent patients have recovered so far," a senior health ministry official said.

The total confirmed cases include foreigners.

The death toll has gone up by 193 since Saturday morning, of which 99 were from Maharashtra, 27 from Gujarat, 18 from Delhi, nine each from Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, seven from West Bengal, six each from Tamil Nadu and Telangana, five in Bihar, three from Uttar Pradesh, two from Punjab, and one each from Haryana and Kerala.

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.