Eligibility criteria for life cover under EPFO scheme eased
As per the notification, the beneficiary family will be eligible for a
minimum assurance benefit
of ₹50,000 in the event of death of an employee even if the employee's average provident fund balance is less than ₹50,000. Further, for the purpose of determining the continuous period of 12 months required for eligibility of minimum assurance benefits payable under the scheme, the gap of up to 60 days between two spells of employment will be ignored and such multiple services will be added, being treated as continuous service, it said. "In the event an employee who is a member of the Fund or of a provident fund exempted under section 17 of the Act, as the case may be, dies in service within six months of the last contribution received while still being on the rolls of the employer, such an employee shall get the assurance benefit as per the Scheme,"it said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Smart Indians use these 5 WhatsApp tricks
Learn More
Undo
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Still waiting for a fourth stimulus cheque in July or August? Here's why that $2,000 isn't coming
Over the past week, rumours have surged online about a fourth stimulus cheque worth $2,000 supposedly coming in July or August 2025. These claims, heavily circulated on social media and through loosely sourced articles, suggest that new federal relief is on the way for struggling Americans. But there is no official confirmation. Not from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), not from the US Congress, and not from the Treasury Department. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Finance Leadership MBA Product Management Data Analytics healthcare Design Thinking PGDM Cybersecurity CXO Degree others Artificial Intelligence Data Science Technology Healthcare Management Public Policy Data Science Others Digital Marketing Project Management Operations Management MCA Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details This wave of misinformation follows a 19 July article by Rick Adams, which implied that lawmakers were considering new payments due to mounting public pressure. The article stated that single filers earning less than $75,000, and married couples earning under $150,000, would qualify. It also mentioned additional amounts for dependents, with direct deposits possibly starting late 2025 or early 2026 if approved. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play this game for 1 minute and see why everyone is addicted. Undo But that 'if' remains very much hypothetical. No draft legislation, budget allocation or public statement supports these claims. The most recent IRS update, IR-2025-75 issued on 15 July, focused on tax security and extensions. It made no mention of new stimulus efforts. Live Events IRS and Treasury: No fourth cheque in the works There's been no movement from the IRS or the Treasury to suggest that another stimulus is being prepared. The last round of Economic Impact Payments was part of the American Rescue Plan in 2021. That provided up to $1,400 per eligible individual. As of now, the only related payments still being processed involve the 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit, with $2.4 billion in unclaimed funds still being issued. But that process ends by January 2025. The IRS confirmed in bulletin IR-2024-314 that this is not a new cheque, just money left unclaimed from the third stimulus. Congress has not passed any law approving a fourth round. And the deadline to file for the third stimulus expired on 15 April 2025. Trump's DOGE plan still just a proposal Back in February, Donald Trump floated the idea of a one-time $5,000 'DOGE dividend' during a summit in Miami. He tied it to projected savings from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Trump said, 'We are considering using part of the 20% in savings DOGE identified and giving that back to taxpayers.' That proposal, however, has gone nowhere. There's been no follow-up from Congress, no formal plan, and certainly no timeline. It remains just an idea with no structure or funding behind it. Cost of living rising, relief still sparse There's no denying that many Americans are feeling the pinch. Rising costs of rent, food and healthcare continue to put pressure on households, especially the elderly and low-income earners. Adams noted this in his article, and there is some factual basis to that concern. Social Security's Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) for 2025 aims to provide some support. But it's not keeping pace with actual inflation rates. Economists cited by calculated that the proposed DOGE savings of $130 billion, even if redistributed, would only amount to around $807 per taxpayer, far below the claimed $2,000. That figure also assumes full congressional approval, which has not been granted. Stimulus payment scams and fake forms on the rise As these rumours spread, so do the scams. Users on X (formerly Twitter) have flagged fake text messages and websites offering early access to the supposed cheque. The IRS is urging caution. In a statement, it advised citizens to 'check for updates and avoid unsolicited payment requests.' It's also worth noting that some states have issued their own forms of inflation relief. These are not federal cheques, and the amounts are far smaller. For example, New York sent one-time inflation cheques of $200 for individuals earning up to $75,000, and $400 for married couples earning up to $150,000. Pennsylvania, Georgia and Colorado also issued what they termed 'rebate cheques' to qualifying taxpayers or property owners. Each state uses its own criteria. A quick look at past stimulus payments Let's put the $2,000 rumour into context by looking at the actual stimulus history: The first cheque, issued in March-April 2020, provided up to $1,200 for individuals and $2,400 for married couples, plus $500 per qualifying child under 17 The second cheque, sent by January 2021, was up to $600 per person and $600 per dependent The third cheque, delivered between March and December 2021, gave $1,400 per eligible individual, and $1,400 per dependent Any unclaimed stimulus payments had to be filed for via the 2021 tax return. The final deadline was 15 April 2025, with no extensions available. Even if a taxpayer requested a filing extension, that did not apply to the stimulus claim. The IRS made clear that 'any unclaimed stimulus payments become the property of the U.S. Treasury.' How to track refunds or missing stimulus payments If you are waiting for a tax refund or think you might have missed a stimulus payment, the best step is to use the IRS's 'Where's My Refund' tool online. It updates daily and lets users track the progress of their federal return. You will need your Social Security number, filing status and the exact refund amount to access the tool. If you filed electronically with direct deposit, you can expect to see the refund in your account within 21 days. For paper filers, it might take up to eight weeks. Alternatively, the IRS helpline at 800-829-1954 is available for those unable to use the website. State refunds, meanwhile, must be tracked via each state's own tax portal. For example, the Delaware Division of Taxation and the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue each have dedicated online systems.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Double delight: Same numbers, two shops; Massachusetts man hits $2M Powerball jackpot twice
In a remarkable twist of luck, a Massachusetts man won $2 million after unknowingly purchasing two identical Powerball tickets for the same drawing, from two different stores. Paul Corcoran, from Fitchburg in north-central Massachusetts, originally bought a multi-draw Powerball ticket for seven games in the run-up to the July 9 draw, CNN reported. However, thinking the final draw on that ticket had already taken place, Corcoran picked up another seven-draw ticket just minutes away from the first store, inadvertently including the same July 9 draw twice. That simple mistake turned into a fortune. According to the Massachusetts State Lottery and Powerball, both of Corcoran's tickets matched all five white balls drawn, 5, 9, 25, 28, and 69, earning him $1 million per ticket before taxes. He missed the full $217 million jackpot by just one number, the red Powerball 5. Corcoran told officials he has been playing the same set of random numbers 'for quite some time'. He claimed his double prize at the Massachusetts State Lottery headquarters, though said he has no immediate plans for the winnings. The tickets were purchased at two locations: a Market Basket supermarket in Fitchburg and a Country Farms convenience store in nearby Leominster. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Flexible MBA by SRM—Apply Now! SRM Online Apply Now Undo Both retailers will receive a $10,000 bonus for selling a $1 million winning ticket. According to the lottery office, these were the first $1 million Powerball wins ever recorded in Fitchburg and Leominster, CNN reported. The odds of hitting the Powerball jackpot stand at a staggering 1 in 292.2 million. The next drawing is scheduled for 21 July, with an estimated top prize of $308 million.
Economic Times
37 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Wealth edition 21-Jul-2025 to 27-july-2025
1. Plain in language, but legally? Live Events 2. Tedious TDS compliance 3. Faceless assessments issues 4. Belated returns & refund panic 5. Delay in appeals continues 6. Digital enforcement sans rights 7. Family ownership The new Income Tax Bill , 2025 is touted as a long-overdue rewrite of the Income Tax Act , 1961. Tabled in Parliament on 13 February, it is leaner—nearly half the word count of the old Act—visually cleaner, and organised into schedules and tables for easy navigation. The Select Committee examining the Bill is likely to table its report on 21 July with 285 recommendations, as the monsoon session of Parliament brevity is welcome, but the real question is: has the law become easier to comply with, or just easier to read? For most salaried individuals, pensioners, HUFs, and small businesses—the bulk of India's taxpayers— clean language alone isn't enough. They seek a system that's truly easier: fewer hurdles, faster resolutions, and fairer treatment. Let's explore certain key areas that reveal the difference between surface-level simplification and real compliance Bill does try to replace certain complicated legal jargons with easier-to-understand English counterparts. It replaces the confusing dual year concepts of 'assessment year' and 'previous year' with a uniform 'tax year'. Similarly, 'notwithstanding anything' makes way for the simpler phrase 'irrespective of'. However, the Bill does little to demystify these provisions for average brevity is mainly due to smart formatting. Long subsections, provisos and explanations have been recast into separate schedules and tables. While it improves readability, core legal complexities remain: e.g., bulky clauses of eligible saving and investment avenues in Section 80C of the existing Act are now part of Schedule XV, with a shorter main provision under Section 123 in the Bill—thus streamlining form, not Bill retains the substantive core of the existing Act. The five heads of income remain unchanged, as does the computational architecture. Key reliefs and thresholds, including the `12-lakh exemption in the new tax regime, are still there. This ensures continuity but also retains historical complexities. Areas like capital gains, holding periods, asset classification, overlapping exemptions under sections 54, 54EC, 54F, and fair market value (FMV) rules are untouched and navigating them demands new tabular layout for tax deduction at source (TDS) provisions—listing rates, thresholds, and deductee types—reduces confusion, but procedural pain points persist. Refunds of excess TDS mistakenly deducted and deposited by deductors still require manual follow-up, suffer delays, and lack transparency. The Bill misses an opportunity to mandate automatic system-driven refunds for the current Act, Section 144B outlines faceless assessment in legislative the new Bill relegates this whole framework to executive rule-making under Section 273. By making it a government-notified scheme instead of embedding it in the law, the Bill lowers parliamentary oversight. It may offer administrative flexibility but dilutes legislative sanctity and taxpayer protection. Faceless reassessments, appeals and penalty proceedings are similarly diluted, raising worries on transparency and legal Section 263 of the Bill, corresponding to Section 139 of the Act, mandates return filing by specified taxpayers on or before due date, it also adds a new category—any person seeking to claim a refund must now file their return by the due date. This requirement has no parallel in Section 139 of the current 239 of the current law allows refund claims through any return filed as per Section 139, including belated or revised returns. In the new Bill, Section 263(1)(a)(ix) disqualifies returns filed after the due date from claiming refunds, thus barring belated or revised returns from claiming refunds. Unless clarified or amended, this provision is a regressive departure and risks unfairly denying refunds to honest but delayed cognizance of this, the Select Committee has reportedly recommended for the deletion of this both laws, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 'may' dispose of appeals within a year. In reality, it often takes 4-5 years. Refunds get stuck, and justice is delayed. The current draft of the Bill does not make this timeline strengthening enforcement by authorising access to digital footprint, cloud data, and personal devices, the Bill raises privacy concerns. Strong oversight and clear limits must check the powers today often share ownership and income. But the tax law still treats each individual in isolation, leading to misattributed income or unwanted clubbing. The Bill missed an opportunity to allow for declaration-based beneficial ownership or joint filings. While enforcement adapts to the digital era, compliance is stuck in the simplification must entail easier TDS compliances and regime choices, faster refunds, timely appeals, privacy safeguards, and rules reflect real financial lives. Until these changes follow, the burden on honest taxpayers may remain largely unchanged.
