Srinivas College row: CFI activists canned; 2 students, 3 cops hospitalised

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, Jun 20: A petition has been filed in Karnataka High Court to transfer Amulya Leona case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). She raised pro-Pakistan slogans at an anti-CAA rally on February 20 at Freedom Park.

The petition, filed by advocate Vishal Raghu, blamed the probe team for not filing chargesheet on time and suggested the state government to approach the higher court against bail granted to Amulya Leona.

On June 11, she was granted conditional bail by the Bengaluru civil court.

She was charged with sedition for her actions in the presence of All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi.

The court granted bail after hearing the bail application. Amulya's advocate on behalf of the petitioner said, "the petitioner is just a 19-year-old lady and she is studying in a private college in the Bengaluru. She shouted 'Pakistan Zindabad' but she never mentioned Pakistan as her country."

New Delhi, Mar 6: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking framing of a proper mechanism to deal with alleged misuse of the sedition law by the government machinery. A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar dismissed the plea filed by a social activist and said it was open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

At the outset, the apex court told advocate Utsav Singh Bains, appearing for the petitioner, that he could not seek quashing of an FIR in a sedition case filed against the management of a Karnataka school for allegedly allowing students to stage an anti-CAA and anti-NRC drama.

Bains told the bench that he was not just pressing for a prayer to quash the FIR but the petitioner has also sought a direction for framing of a proper mechanism to deal with the alleged misuse of the sedition law.

"Let the affected party come and we will hear them. Why it should be done at your instance," the bench said, refusing to entertain the petition.

The petition had sought quashing of the FIR against the principal and other staff of the Shaheen School at Bidar who have been booked under sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code.

The plea had also sought an apex court direction for a proper mechanism to deal with alleged government misuse of the sedition law.

Section 124A of the IPC says that "whoever brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards... the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life...".

The plea had sought a direction to the Centre and the Karnataka government "to quash the FIR registered in connection of seditious charges against the school management, teacher and a widowed parent of a student for staging a play criticising CAA, NRC and NPR."

The petition had claimed that the police "also questioned students, and videos and screenshots of CCTV footage showing them speaking to the students were shared widely on social media, prompting criticism."

The drama was staged on January 21 by students of the fourth, the fifth and the sixth standard.

The sedition case was filed based on a complaint by social worker Neelesh Rakshyal on 26 January.

The complainant alleged that the school authorities "used" the students to perform a drama where they "abused" Modi in the context of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.