MHADA appoints Keystone Realtors to redevelop Sindhi refugee families' residences at Mumbai's GTB Nagar
MHADA Vice-President and CEO Sanjeev Jaiswal transferred the Letter of Intent (LOI) to the realtor on Monday, paving the way for the construction of new buildings on 11.20 acres.
Around 1,200 Sindhi families had to shift to temporary accommodation in 2020 after the apartments, which were built in 1958, were declared unsafe by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).
The buildings were subsequently demolished, and the Maharashtra government approved a redevelopment scheme after repeated pleas by tenant societies, although the land is in private ownership.
As per the redevelopment proposal, all 1,200 eligible families will be given a free flat of 635 square feet, with MHADA paying Rs 20,000 monthly rent until they get their possession and pay maintenance expenses for five years after redevelopment.
The State Cabinet cleared the proposal on February 14, 2024, and a resolution was issued on February 23, 2024, authorising MHADA to be the Special Planning Authority.
'It is for the first time that MHADA is redeveloping on private land as a chosen development agency. A 5-7 member committee of society representatives would be constituted to oversee the project and MHADA will give complete support so that the rehabilitation is done on time,' Jaiswal said, adding that the project shall be carried out under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) Regulation 33(9).
The scheme permits a minimum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 4.5, including a fungible area. MHADA will get 25,700 square metres of the built-up area as housing stock.
According to MHADA officials, legal actions in the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court had delayed the project.
A final ruling by the Supreme Court in 2024 permitted MHADA to go ahead, establishing a precedent for such future redevelopments.
Upon approval from Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in February last year, MHADA moved on the orders to bring the project on track.
The redevelopment scheme is based on the current redevelopment of BDD Chawl in Mumbai, officials said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
14 minutes ago
- India.com
This Indian owned flats in Burj Khalifa, private jets, had Rs 18000 crore net worth, went bankrupt due to single tweet, was forced to sell Rs 12400000000000 firm for Rs 74, he is..
Luck plays an important role in our lives. Sometimes, even a ragpicker becomes a millionaire, whilst even the richest person can lose everything and become a beggar. And BR Shetty's story is one prime example. Once an Indian billionaire, who owned two floors in Burj Khalifa and private jets, had Rs 18000 crore net worth, was forced to sell his Rs 124000 crore firm for just Rs 74 due to…; well, read the story to know more about him. Who is this Indian Billionaire who suddenly went bankrupt, sold his Rs 124000 crore firm for just Rs 74? Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty, famously known as BR Shetty, was born on August 1, 1942, into a lower middle-class family in Udupi, then part of the Madras Presidency during the British Raj (in what is now Karnataka). BR Shetty emerged as one of the world's wealthiest people, featuring on Forbes' India's 100 Richest People list in 2015, and was ranked 42nd in 2019. According to Forbes, he secured 804th position in the 'World's Billionaires List, The Richest In 2019' list. BR Shetty worked as a medical representative, and in 1973, at the age of 31, took the plunge to leave India for Dubai, UAE. Media reports suggest that he arrived in Dubai with just $8 and spent the initial days as a door-to-door salesman or selling medicines. However, in just a brief period, BR Shetty made connections with a small number of wealthy and influential individuals, and just a couple of years later, started up the New Medical Center Health (NMC), the first private healthcare provider company in the UAE, in Dubai. NMC Healthcare is the UAE's largest private healthcare network and the third largest healthcare network in Oman. Explaining Shetty's lifestyle is not surprising when he owned private jets, Rolls-Royce cars, and multiple luxury properties, including two floors in the Burj Khalifa (Dubai). He even founded companies like New Medical Centre (NMC), UAE Exchange, and Finablr, built a multi-billion empire in just a few years. Dr. Chandrakumari Raghuram Shetty is a well-respected medical expert in her own field. She has contributed immensely to both the establishment and growth of NMC Health. With her husband's (Dr. B.R. Shetty) venture, she was the first medical professional to step into his first medical center's role back in 1975. She contributed as the first resident doctor and was pivotal in constructing the clinical structure of NMC. She was the first resident doctor of the company and had an important role in the development of its clinical framework and finally became the Group Medical Director at NMC Health. However, his empire came tumbling down when U.S.-based financial research firm Muddy Waters Research called him out in 2019 for hiding $1 billion in debt from investors. This ultimately led to the total collapse of his entity and he subsequently sold his company for just Rs 74. In 2019, when he was at the height of his successes, B.R. Shetty's net worth was estimated at $3.15 billion – making him one of India's richest billionaires according to Forbes. When at his pinnacle, B.R. Shetty's net worth reached $3 billion (approximately Rs 20,000 crore).
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
Taxpayer wins Rs 1.4 lakh penalty case despite claiming false income tax deductions to reduce income by 50%; Know the details
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills How did this income tax penalty case for claiming false tax deductions start? FY 2017-18: Patil filed Shinde's ITR declaring taxable income of Rs 4 lakh (407,090) by claiming multiple income tax deductions. Patil filed Shinde's ITR declaring taxable income of Rs 4 lakh (407,090) by claiming multiple income tax deductions. May 28, 2019: Shinde came to know that Patil claimed excess tax refund by claiming many false tax deductions. He immediately paid back the due tax with interest. However, the revised ITR could not be filed voluntarily since the date to file one was over. Shinde came to know that Patil claimed excess tax refund by claiming many false tax deductions. He immediately paid back the due tax with interest. However, the revised ITR could not be filed voluntarily since the date to file one was over. February 2020: The Income Tax Department Assessing Officer (AO), on the basis of information received from the Income Tax Officer, (Investigation), that Shinde has claimed excess deductions, initiated proceeding under Section 147 after obtaining approval from the authorities and accordingly, a notice under Section 148 was issued. The Income Tax Department Assessing Officer (AO), on the basis of information received from the Income Tax Officer, (Investigation), that Shinde has claimed excess deductions, initiated proceeding under Section 147 after obtaining approval from the authorities and accordingly, a notice under Section 148 was issued. March 11, 2020: Shinde filed an ITR in response to notice under Section 148, declaring taxable income of Rs 8 lakh (8,32,990). Shinde filed an ITR in response to notice under Section 148, declaring taxable income of Rs 8 lakh (8,32,990). March 2, 2021: The Income Tax Department completed the assessment of Shinde's ITR under Section 147 by accepting it. The Income Tax Department completed the assessment of Shinde's ITR under Section 147 by accepting it. September 12, 2021: The Income Tax Department Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty of Rs 1.4 lakh (1,46,760) under Section 270A(8) for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Shinde filed an appeal in CIT (A) against this penalty order. The Income Tax Department Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty of Rs 1.4 lakh (1,46,760) under Section 270A(8) for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Shinde filed an appeal in CIT (A) against this penalty order. September 27, 2024: CIT (Appeals) dismissed Shinde's appeal and confirmed the penalty of Rs 1.4 lakh (1,46,760) imposed u/s 270A(8). It is this order of CIT (Appeals) against which Shinde filed an appeal before ITAT (Pune). ITAT Pune's investigation found that Shinde was cheated by Patil to conduct this tax fraud 'We find that the assessee (Shinde) is a salaried employee & belongs to a technical background. The return (ITR) of most of the employees of CEAT LTD, Bosch Company, HAL & M & M including that of the assessee (Shinde) was filed by a tax consultant namely Patil. We further find that the assessee (Shinde) came to know from other employees in the company that Patil with his expertise is able to legally calculate lower tax, resulting in a refund of TDS deducted by the employer. The assessee (Shinde) was unaware about the contents of the Income Tax Return filed by Patil & truly believed that the returns (ITR) are filed legally as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The assessee being from technical background does not understand ABCD of Income Tax & therefore completely relied on the above named tax consultant, who without informing him & others, claimed excess deduction under chapter VI-A of the IT Act & claimed refund. It was Patil who cheated all the employees & claimed excess deduction in their returns without informing them for his own benefit. The fact of the cheating came to light when a survey u/s 133A was conducted at the premises of Patil. When the fact that this kind of fraud was made in the name of a number of persons all of them complaint to the Economic Offence Wing of Police, against the tax consultant Patil. It is also apparent that there is no mistake of the assessee but it was the hidden interest of the tax consultant who triggered the gun by using the shoulders of the assessee & many more for his own benefit.' What did ITAT Pune say about Shinde's action post the fraud coming to his notice It is also found that as soon as the fact of excess deduction claimed, came to the knowledge of the assessee (Shinde) he immediately paid the due tax with interest, even before the issue of notice under Section 148 & contacted another genuine tax consultant who prepared and furnished correct return in response to the notice under Section 148. We find that the Assessing Officer has levied a penalty under Section 270(A) of Rs 1,46,760 on the basis of the fact that the correct income was not returned voluntarily but only after issue of notice under Section 148. It is also found that when the notice under Section 148 was issued the appellant (Shinde) has disclosed his correct income & paid the due tax before issue of notice. We also find that the Income Tax Department Assessing Officer has accepted the return as it is, which was furnished by the appellant (Shinde) in response to the notice under Section 148. ITAT Pune final judgement We cannot accept the contention of Ld. DR (Income Tax Department lawyer) that the revised return was not voluntary therefore the penalty under Section 270(A) is inevitable. In this regard the contention of counsel (Shinde's lawyer) is also important wherein he stated that the due tax along-with interest was already paid before the issue of notice under Section 148 & admittedly the return of income (ITR) could not be filed as the due date was already over. We find force in the arguments of the counsel of the assessee (Shinde) that the amount of tax & interest was deposited voluntarily much prior to the issue of notice under Section 148 since the income tax with interest was deposited by the assessee on 28-05-2019 whereas the notice under Section 148 was issued on 25-02-2020. What is the significance of this judgement for other taxpayers? 'In this case, the taxpayer was unaware about the incorrect or excessive claims made by the consultant in his income tax return and had relied entirely upon the consultant's expertise. Subsequently, when he came to know about the incorrect or excessive claim in his return, he promptly recomputed the correct tax liability and interest thereon and voluntarily deposited. This he has done before any notice could be issued by the tax department and this proactive approach saved him from penal consequences. While the applicability of this decision to other cases would depend on the specific facts involved, however, this may serve as a relevant precedent in a situation where a taxpayer voluntarily pays the correct tax and interest before receiving any notice, and is able to demonstrate bona fide reliance on third party consultant along with a lack of his personal knowledge of the tax laws.' 'The judgment lays emphasis that due to the assessee's bonafide intentions, proactiveness to make things right, no intention of tax evasion would have weightage over mistakes done in ITR without his knowledge, even if it led to under reporting of income. If the assessee due to his different technical background, fully relied on his tax consultant, who undertook a fraudulent act for which the assessee had no knowledge and as soon as he became aware, he rectified it suo moto, and should not be held responsible or punished ( be it financially) for someone else's malafide act. So if one is aware and prompt in his corrective actions, along with facts and evidence, he can demonstrate his genuine position and get relief from such a penalty.' The Income Tax Department imposed a penalty equivalent to 17% of Mr Shinde's salary after it was proved that he had claimed false income tax deductions to under-report his income by about 50% to lower his net income tax liability. The penalty imposed by the income tax department amounted to Rs 1.4 lakh. Shinde's actual salary was Rs 8 lakh a year, which he reported as only Rs 4 this might look like a fair punishment for someone who wilfully evaded paying income tax, Mr Shinde argued in court that he was just an innocent employee with a technical background. He said that like him, many other employees from companies like Ceat, Bosch, HAL, Mahindra and Mahindra among others, relied on a tax consultant named Mr Patil to file their Income Tax Returns (ITRs). Patil assured them that he was an expert in tax law and could legally calculate a lower tax, leading to a refund of the TDS deducted by their lawyers told ITAT Pune: 'The assessee was unaware about the contents of the Income Tax Return (ITR) filed by Patil & truly believed that the returns are filed legally as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.'Shinde also informed the court that as soon as he found out about this illegal act of claiming false tax deductions, he had filed a complaint in the Economic Offence Wing, Maharashtra Police against paid the full tax amount plus interest, just like he was supposed to, without claiming any bogus tax deductions. However, the income tax department stated that even though he returned the owed tax with interest, he should still face penalty for committing this offence and for not voluntarily submitting a revised first, Shinde filed an appeal against the penalty of Rs 1.4 lakh that the tax department slapped on him with the Commissioner of Appeals (CIT (Appeals)). However, CIT (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading Shinde to take his case to ITAT Pune. There, he won the case and the entire penalty of Rs 1.4 lakh was main reason why Shinde won this case is because ITAT Pune recognized his good behavior. He pointed out the illegal actions of his tax consultant (Patil) and returned the full amount of the income tax owed, along with interest, just as the law Pune said: '....It is found that when the notice under Section 148 was issued, the appellant (Shinde) has disclosed his correct income & paid the due tax before issue of notice. We also find that the Assessing Officer of Income Tax Department has accepted the return (ITR) as it is which was furnished by the appellant (Shinde) in response to the notice u/s 148. We cannot accept the contention of Ld. DR (income tax department lawyer) that the revised return (revised ITR) was not voluntary, therefore the penalty u/s 270(A) of the Act is inevitable….'Check out the info below to find out why and under what circumstances Shinde managed to win this income tax penalty case despite claiming false tax deductions to declare lower income and pay less to ITAT Pune judgement dated May 8, 2025. Here's the timeline of events:Also read: Income Tax Bill 2025: Income from house property taxation related two key amendments suggested by select committee, know the impact According to the judgement order, here's what ITAT Pune said:(No part of the judgement is altered and the same is presented below as it is)According to the judgement order, here's what ITAT Pune said:ITAT Pune deleted the tax notice and thus the penalty of Rs 1.4 lakh stood what ITAT Pune said:'Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to impose penalty u/s 270(A) & accordingly the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside & the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty of Rs 1,46,760 imposed u/s 270(A). Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.'ET Wealth Online reached out to a number of lawyers and chartered accountants to get their take on the importance of this judgement for other taxpayers. Here's what they said:'This ruling marks a significant development in tax penalty jurisprudence. It emphasises that even under the newer Section 270A regime, tax penalties are not merely about ticking boxes but involve a fair process that considers the taxpayer's intent and actions. The key takeaway from this ruling is that it reassures taxpayers that if they are honest and proactive—even when faced with mistakes or misleading advice—they are protected by law. Salaried taxpayers and those relying on consultants now see a tribunal recognising their situation and not penalising them for third-party misleading advice or fraud.''This is a welcome judgment, particularly in times where taxpayers often face genuine hardship in filing a revised ITR beyond the prescribed due date. The judgment also underscores the bona fide of a taxpayer and the principle that the taxpayer must approach with clean hands, as was demonstrated in this case, where the taxpayer proactively paid the taxes along with applicable interest immediately upon being made aware of the consultant's error, and notably, even before receiving any demand notice.''In the said case, involving peculiar facts, the Appellate Tribunal held that improper deduction claimed in reliance on professional advice—being influenced by an advisor's hidden agenda—should not attract penalties if there was no willful intent by the taxpayer to evade tax. It further clarified that taxpayers who voluntarily correct such errors and pay taxes before detection may be spared from penal consequences. The ruling reaffirms the principle that not every ineligible claim warrants a penalty, especially in cases of bona fide error. With the Income-tax Department intensifying scrutiny of improper deductions, this decision offers timely relief to similarly affected taxpayers.'
New Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
KGF Babu coughs up Rs 40 lakh road tax for two Rolls-Royces
BENGALURU: Transport officials have collected nearly Rs 40 lakh in pending road tax from businessman and politician Yusuf Sharif aka KGF Babu, for plying two Maharashtra-registered luxury cars in Karnataka. Babu owns a Rolls-Royce Phantom and Rolls-Royce Ghost that he, officials said, bought from actors Amitabh Bachchan and Aamir Khan. A team led by Joint Commissioner of Transport Shobha went to Babu's house in Vasanth Nagar on Wednesday, and told him that he has to shell out nearly Rs 40 lakh, including penalty for late payment, for the two cars. 'For any vehicle registered outside Karnataka, the owner must pay road tax here if they are found operating the vehicle for more than a year. Babu has been using the vehicles for nearly two years. RTO officials collected enough evidence against Babu,' Shobha said. Officials said Babu initially claimed that he was not using the vehicles in Karnataka permanently, and they would be sent back to Maharashtra, but later paid the tax. 'One car had Rs 19.73 lakh in pending tax, while the other had Rs 18.53 lakh. He paid the tax and penalty for late payment for both vehicles at once,' Shobha said.
