India's COVID-19 mortality rate lowest in world, over 10,000 patients discharged: Harsh Vardhan

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.

New Delhi, Apr 28: Outstanding loans amounting to Rs 68,607 crore of top 50 wilful bank loan defaulters in the country including firms of Mehul Choksi and Vijay Mallya have been technically written off till September 30, 2019, the Reserve Bank of India said in a RTI reply.

Absconding dimantaire Choksi's company Gitanjali Gems tops the list of these defaulters with a whopping amount of Rs 5,492 crore, according to the list.

This is followed by REI Agro with Rs 4,314 crore and Winsome Diamonds with Rs 4,076 crore.

Rotomac Global Private Limited has funded advances of Rs 2,850 crore which have been technically written off and Kudos Chemie Ltd with Rs 2,326 crore, Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, now owned by Ramdev's Patanjali, with Rs 2,212 crore and Zoom Developers Pvt Ltd with Rs 2,012 crore being the other companies.

Mallya's Kingfisher Airlines figures in the list at number 9, with outstanding of Rs 1943 crore which have been technically written off by the banks.

Forever Precious Jewellery and Diamonds Private Limited has loans of Rs 1,962 crore written off while Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited have Rs 1915 crore written off loans.

Choksi's other firms Gili India and Nakshatra Brands also have loans of Rs 1,447 and Rs 1109 crore respectively written off.

REI Agro of Jhunjhunwala brothers is already under the scanner of ED. The CBI and ED are also probing alleged fraud by the owners of Winsome Diamonds.

Vikram Kothari's Rotomac is the fourth in the list. He and his son Rahul Kothari were arrested by the CBI for bank loan default.

In the last Parliament session, Rahul Gandhi had asked the government to provide a list of top 50 bank loans defaulters in the country, leading to sharp exchanges and uproar in the Lok Sabha.

"The information on top 50 wilful defaulters and their sum of funded amount outstanding and amount technically/prudentially written off as on September 30, 2019 reported in CRILC by banks, is provided," the RBI said in its written response dated April 24.

In his application, RTI activist Saket Gokhale had sought the list of defaulters as on February 16, but the RBI said the requested information is not available.

The RBI said that according to section 8 (1)(a) of RTI Act 2005 read with para 77 of Supreme Court judgement of December 16, 2015 in Jayantilal N Mistry case, information on overseas borrowers is exempted from public disclosure.

"Data is as reported by banks and RBI will not be held responsibly or accountable for any misreporting and/or incorrect reporting by the reporting entities," the RBI said in the written reply to the RTI query.

New Delhi, Feb 29: Former Union Minister M J Akbar told a Delhi court on Friday that journalist Priya Ramani had defamed him by calling him with adjectives such as 'media's biggest predator' in the wake of #MeToo movement in 2018 that harmed his reputation.

M J Akbar made the allegations before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja through his lawyer during the final hearing of a private criminal defamation complaint filed by him against Priya Ramani. Akbar resigned as Union minister on October 17, 2018.

Ramani in 2018 accused Akbar of sexual misconduct around 20 years ago when he was a journalist.

Senior advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for Akbar, said that the allegations were intentional and malafide.

“When you call someone media's biggest predator, it is per se defamatory. Calling a person with such adjectives is on the face of it defamatory. In the eyes of the people, Akbar's reputation was harmed... The per se effect was lowering of my (Akbar) reputation in the eyes of the right thinking members of the society,” she told the court.

She said there was no due process in the allegations. “It has a cascading effect. Embarrassing questions were asked. I (Akbar) am a person of greatest integrity... There was no due process in the allegations. You cannot just make allegation and let that person suffer,” she added.

Luthra said that if there was any grievance, it had to be raised then and there before the appropriate authority.

“We need to realise the effect has what we say or what we do. It's not like she went to any authority or raised any grievance. Opportunity was there, rights were there but to attack so person behind their back on social media...knowing that his whole life will be adversely affected? It's not right,” she said.

M J Akbar has denied all the allegations of sexual harassment against the women who came forward during #MeToo campaign against him.

Akbar had earlier told the court that the allegations made in an article in the 'Vogue' and the subsequent tweets were defamatory on the face of it as the complainant had deposed them to be false and imaginary and that an “immediate damage” was caused to him due to the “false” allegations by Priya Ramani.

Ramani had earlier told the court that her “disclosure” of alleged sexual harassment by Akbar has come at “a great personal cost” and she had “nothing to gain” from it.

She had said her move would empower women to speak up and make them understand their rights at workplace.

Several women came up with accounts of the alleged sexual harassment by M J Akbar him while they were working as journalists under him.

He has termed the allegations “false, fabricated and deeply distressing” and said he was taking appropriate legal action against them.