Latest news with #Form17
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Bombay HC Dismisses Election Petitions Against Fadnavis, Mungantiwar & Other BJP Leaders
Nagpur: In a setback to Congress, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed multiple election petitions filed by its defeated candidates challenging the victories of Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis , senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar, and three other MLAs. The court ruled the pleas were not maintainable due to procedural lapses, including the petitioners' failure to be physically present during filing — a mandatory legal requirement. Justice Pravin Patil quashed five petitions filed by Congress candidates Prafulla Gudadhe, Girish Pandav, Satish Warjurkar, Subhash Dhote, and Santosh Singh Rawat. The pleas targeted the results from Nagpur South-West, Nagpur South, Chimur, Rajura, and Ballarpur constituencies in Vidarbha, respectively, alleging violations under Representation of the People Act and procedural irregularities in the 2024 assembly polls. "The petitions lacked essential particulars and did not comply with statutory requirements," Justice Patil observed, dismissing them summarily. In Gudadhe's plea, which specifically sought to annul CM Fadnavis's victory from South-West Nagpur, the court held that no evidence of corrupt practices or irregularities was demonstrated. Fadnavis won the seat by a margin of 39,710 votes. Petitioners' counsel Pavan Dahat and Akash Moon told TOI they would challenge the rulings in Supreme Court. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Why seniors are rushing to get this Internet box – here's why! Techno Mag Learn More Undo "We are reviewing the judgment and will file appeals soon," he said. The legal move was part of a wider offensive by the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), in which 27 losing candidates across Vidarbha filed similar petitions. Friday's verdict marks a legal and political setback for Congress, which accused the ruling party of misusing official machinery to swing elections. With this dismissal, Fadnavis, Mungantiwar, Chimur MLA Bunty Bhangadiya, South Nagpur MLA Mohan Mate, and Rajura MLA Deorao Bhongale all received legal reprieve as the court reaffirmed their victories. The petitioners had urged the court to declare victories of BJP legislators "null and void," citing non-compliance with mandatory electoral protocols by Election Commission of India. They argued ECI failed to issue a formal notification for using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and withheld key election records like Form 17 and CCTV footage of strongrooms. They also alleged absence of VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) verification, raising serious questions about transparency and fairness of the electoral process. Victories secured by BJP candidates in 2024 Maharashtra Assembly polls: (Vidarbha region): 1. Nagpur South-West Winner: Devendra Fadnavis (BJP) Defeated: Prafulla Gudadhe (Congress) Votes secured by Fadnavis: 1,20,214 Victory margin: 39,710 2. Nagpur South Winner: Mohan Mate (BJP) Defeated: Girish Pandav (Congress) Votes secured by Mate: 95,082 Victory margin: 22,563 3. Chimur (Chandrapur) Winner: Bunty Bhangadiya (Independent supported by BJP) Defeated: Satish Warjurkar (Congress) Votes secured by Bhangadiya: 78,145 Victory margin: 16,087 4. Ballarpur (Chandrapur) Winner: Sudhir Mungantiwar (BJP) Defeated: Santosh Singh Rawat (Congress) Votes secured by Mungantiwar: 1,05,211 Victory margin: 25,334 5. Rajura (Chandrapur) Winner: Deorao Bhongale (BJP) Defeated: Subhash Dhote (Congress) Votes secured by Bhongale: 88,576 Victory margin: 13,912
Time of India
23-06-2025
- Time of India
90% of kids rescued last year were from child labour: Report
NEW DELHI: Nearly 90% of the 44,902 children freed from the clutches of exploitation in over 27,000 operations between April 2024 and March this year were rescued from child labour, according to a report. The children were rescued by a collective of voluntary organisations in collaboration with authorities. The highest number of rescue operations (23,530) were related to child labour, followed by cases of sexual exploitation (2,766), and begging (1,092). Telangana reported the highest number of child labour rescues (11,063), followed by Bihar (3,974), Rajasthan (3,847), Uttar Pradesh (3,804), and Delhi (2,588). As many as 2,971 children were rescued from sexual exploitation, with West Bengal standing out at the top with 1,005 rescues followed by Bihar (454), Odisha (232), Maharashtra (194) and Rajasthan (191). The report, prepared by voluntary organisation India Child Protection, has drawn from data gathered by Just Rights for Children, a civil society network of over 250 organisations in across 26 states and UTs working in coordination with law enforcement agencies to combat child labour and trafficking as an organised economic crime. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Focusing on how prosecution acts as a tipping point to end child labour, the report highlighted that legal action taken in 27,320 operations, showed that in majority of cases that is 35% (9,595) FIRs were registered - seen as a the most critical step in ensuring that those who are exploiting are prosecuted. In another 25% (6,959) cases were filed as General Diary entries, which are initial police records. In addition, around 23% of legal actions involved orders from child welfare committees (CWCs) or were filed under Form 17 of Juvenile Justice Rules, both of which focus on immediate care, protection and rehabilitation of rescued children. In 14% cases, challans were issued by labour departments, mainly in cases of child labour, serving as administrative penalties. The report said a very small proportion (less than 1%) were orders from district magistrates or sub-divisional magistrates, and only about 2% of cases had no clear legal action recorded. Just Rights for Children national convener Ravi Kant said despite gaps, prosecution action, crucial in creating strong deterrent against trafficking and child labour, is getting stronger in India. The report also highlighted that 5,809 employers and traffickers were arrested as part of these rescue operations and 85% of these were in child labour-related cases. Telangana, Bihar and Rajasthan reported the highest arrests, while states like UP and MP had fewer arrests despite high rescue numbers - highlighting enforcement gaps. The report also draws attention to missing children data, citing that is not uncommon for children classified as missing to be subsequently rescued from exploitative labour situations. Nearly 11,409 missing children were identified by the civil society network in 11,068 FIRs over 2024-25. Of them, 8,749 children were reported to be traced by March-end this year. States such as West Bengal (3,509), Maharashtra (1,149), and Bihar (1,306) reported the highest rescues of missing children, pointing to active coordination with child tracking systems.
Telegraph
04-04-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
How landlords can save hundreds of pounds in tax with this little-used hack
If you live with your spouse or civil partner and earn income from a property you jointly own, you'll usually be taxed on an even split of the rental income between you. However, if one of you has invested more into the property than the other, it could be worth adjusting the default income split for tax purposes. You could save hundreds, or even thousands, of pounds a year in income tax. This is where Form 17 comes in. Here, Telegraph Money explains: What is Form 17? Form 17 and tax implications How to complete a Form 17 When to complete a Form 17 Form 17 FAQs What is Form 17? Form 17 allows married couples or civil partners to be taxed based on the actual shares they own in a joint property, rather than HMRC's standard assumption of a 50/50 split. Miles Dean, head of international tax at law firm Andersen, said: 'By law, rental income from jointly owned property is split equally between spouses or civil partners. If one partner owns a larger share, they can submit Form 17 with evidence, such as a declaration of trust, to be taxed based on their actual ownership of the income. 'This is often used for tax efficiency, such as shifting more rental income to a lower-income spouse to reduce the overall tax burden.' For example, let's say Sarah is a higher-rate taxpayer and owns 30pc of an investment property. Her husband Mark is a basic-rate taxpayer and owns the remaining 70pc of the property. The rental income from the property is £10,000. Under HMRC's default 50:50 rule, they each pay income tax on £5,000. Sarah would pay £2,000 in tax and Mark would pay £1,000 to give a total of £3,000. However, if Sarah and Mark complete Form 17, Sarah would pay higher-rate tax at 40pc on rental income of £3,000 (£1,200) while Mark would pay basic-rate tax at 20pc on £7,000 (£1,400), reducing their overall tax bill to £2,600. This results in a £400 tax saving. Form 17 and tax implications Completing Form 17 can have a number of tax implications. As explained above, specifying your actual property ownership percentages can lower the amount of tax you pay on rental income as a couple if you fall into different income tax bands. If one partner is a basic-rate taxpayer and the other is a higher-rate taxpayer, you can save on tax by allocating a larger share of the rental income to the lower-rate taxpayer. The ownership percentages declared only applies to income tax, not capital gains tax (CGT). Mr Dean said: 'For CGT purposes, ownership remains based on the underlying beneficial ownership, which should be the same as declared in Form 17. If the property is sold, each owner's capital gains tax liability is based on their actual beneficial ownership.' Form 17 doesn't affect how the property is treated for inheritance tax purposes, as inheritance tax is already based on actual beneficial ownership. However, if one spouse transfers part of their share of the property to the other but continues to benefit from it, HMRC may treat this as a gift 'with reservation of benefit'. This means the transferred share remains in the original owner's estate for death duty purposes, even if Form 17 changes how income is taxed. How to complete a Form 17 To complete a Form 17, follow the steps below: Gather the necessary documents: Make sure you have your property deed, mortgage statements and any other documents that outline ownership shares ready before you start. Access the form: You can find Form 17 online on the website. You'll need to have an up-to-date browser, and you must complete the form fully before printing it. You won't be able to save it as you go. Provide the required information: You'll be asked to provide personal details for both you and your partner, including your National Insurance number and your address, along with details about the property. Declare beneficial interests: You must clearly state the actual percentage of the property each of you owns. This must match the actual financial contributions to the property. Print and sign the form: Once completed, print out the form, and both parties must sign and date it. Attach supporting documents: You should include any supporting information that shows the split of shares, such as a deed of trust or deed of assignment. Submit the form to HMRC: Post your form and documents to Pay As You Earn and Self-Assessment, HMRC, BX9 1AS. You must do this within 60 days of signing it. When to complete a Form 17 You'll need to complete a Form 17 if you earn income from a joint property and wish to declare unequal ownership percentages for tax purposes. Form 17 allows you to pay income tax based on the actual ownership percentages, rather than HMRC's default 50/50 split. However, you can only do this if you own the property with a spouse or civil partner and you live together. You must own the property as tenants in common. You cannot make a declaration for income to be divided in unequal shares if you own the property equally. Nor can you submit a Form 17 if you are separated or if one of you disagrees with the split. You must not use a Form 17 for: Income from commercial letting of furnished holiday accommodation Partnership income Income from shares in a company Income from properties held as beneficial joint tenants, where you are both jointly entitled to the whole property and income. Form 17 FAQs How long is a Form 17 valid for? A Form 17 remains valid until the property is sold or transferred, the couple separate, divorce or stop living together, one partner dies, or if one partner transfers any beneficial interest to the other or a third party. Keep in mind that when you complete the form, it must be delivered to HMRC within 60 days, otherwise it becomes invalid. Can you backdate a Form 17? No, you can't backdate a Form 17 – it only takes effect from the date it's signed. Who should submit a Form 17? You should submit a Form 17 if you own an investment property jointly with your spouse or civil partner in unequal shares. Completing the form enables you to inform HMRC of the actual ownership split, so that the tax you pay is based on this rather than the standard 50/50 split. It can be particularly beneficial if one of you pays a higher rate of tax than the other. Allocating a larger share of the property to the lower-earning partner can reduce your overall tax liability.
Telegraph
25-02-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
‘HMRC will take seven months to read my posted letter – is this a joke?'
Email your tax questions to Mike at: taxhacks@ Dear Mike, As we know, it is increasingly difficult to interact meaningfully with HMRC, and sometimes this is time critical. Where property is held jointly by married couples or civil partners, there is a presumption that it is held in equal shares and income therefrom is taxed as to half each – regardless of the actual shares. Where a property is held as tenants in common, it is possible to submit a Form 17 (by post only) to elect to be taxed according to the actual ownership shares. This form has to be accompanied by evidence of ownership, such as a declaration, and is only effective if submitted within 60 days. Three months after having submitted such a form, I have received no acknowledgement. Has the form been received? Has it been accepted? Has it been rejected? There is no way of knowing. There is no effective way of contacting HMRC about this, so one is left in limbo. I tried an online chat with the HMRC bot and was told that I could expect an acknowledgement by May 20 2025, seven months after the date of submission of the form. If the form has been lost or rejected, then another one will have to be completed – and the election will not take effect until goodness knows when, as a new declaration will presumably have to be made. Where there is an obligation on a taxpayer to submit a form, there should surely be an equal obligation on HMRC to acknowledge it within a reasonable time. This of course happens automatically with online submission of tax returns, but Form 17 has to be submitted by post – is this some kind of joke? – Robert Dear Robert, You raise an important point. The rules say that partners who live together and are married or in a civil partnership are assumed to receive income from property equally for tax purposes. It is often the case, however, that property is held unequally. This can be beneficial for tax purposes, typically where one partner is a non-taxpayer or pays at a lower rate that the other. To achieve the split for tax purposes, two documents are required. Firstly, you need a document setting out the actual beneficial ownership. This can be through a document showing actual legal ownership or through a declaration of trust. The second document required is the Form 17, produced by HMRC. This document can be completed online but, as you say, it must then be printed off, signed by both parties and sent by post to HMRC with the evidence of the actual ownership. This procedure is explained in the HMRC manuals at TSEM9851. A 60-day time limit operates for submitting the form and related evidence to HMRC, timed from the date of signing. This time limit is applied strictly by HMRC, as made clear in TSEM9862. This procedure would be fine if HMRC responded with the same efficiency, but there is ample evidence that it does not do so. This creates the difficult position that you find yourself in, and – judging from the responses from our readers – you are not alone. A similar problem can arise with tax elections. I had cause to submit an election for someone last September to take advantage of the period of absence rules using the guidance at CG65030. I wrote about this election recently for a reader. The acceptance of this election was important both for their self-assessment tax return and the online reporting of the residential property gain, which has the 60-day deadline. It is now well past these deadlines and I am still waiting for a response from HMRC. In a similar vein, last year, I received a letter from HMRC dated May 13 2024 with the opening line, ' Thank you for your letter of August 1 2023. I am sorry for the delay in replying'. I do not understand how it can have taken over nine months to be actioned. It is possible, I suppose, that Royal Mail delayed the letter – but it seems more likely that it was sitting for months in a pile of post at HMRC. A similar issue arises for trust returns because you cannot use the normal online self-assessment service unless you can afford some expensive special software. You instead have to submit the return on paper by October 31 for HMRC to calculate the tax due. This can also apply for those with chargeable gains from single premium insurance policies. I act as treasurer of a local club which is structured as a trust. I duly submitted the tax return for 2023-24 on September 30 2024, well ahead of the October 31 deadline. Having heard nothing by January 13, I called the HMRC trust department, which said it had not received the return. I was asked to print off and submit a duplicate return. I am pleased to say this was actioned quickly, and HMRC responded with its calculation of the liability – albeit after the January 31 due date. Working out the tax liability of a trust is not straightforward. This wasn't a problem for me but it could well be for others caught in this position. Again, I cannot be sure why the return had not been recorded correctly. I entirely agree with your suggestion that there should be an obligation on HMRC to respond with at least an acknowledgement within an appropriate time. We do, of course, have the HMRC Taxpayers Charter, which has legal force under the Finance Act 2009. Under 'Getting things right' it says: 'We'll help you meet your tax responsibilities and make sure you get any benefits, tax credits, refunds or other support you can claim'. Under 'Being responsive' it says: 'We'll answer your questions and resolve things first time, or as quickly as we can. We'll also explain what happens next and when you can expect a response from us'. The problem is that what HMRC says and what it does seems to be very different. You will be aware of the recent report by the Public Accounts Committee. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP for North Cotswolds and chair of the PAC, said: 'Given that citizens have no choice but to engage with HMRC, it has a responsibility to aspire to the highest standards of service. 'Unfortunately, what we have instead is a tax authority excavating its way to new lows in service levels every year. Worse, it seems to be degrading its own services as a matter of policy'. The vast majority of taxpayers want to pay the tax they owe, on time, and with the least trouble. I congratulate Sir Geoffrey and his committee for standing up in this way on behalf of ordinary taxpayers who are simply asking for a better service from HMRC in order to achieve those aims. It may be that we have both been unfortunate, Robert. Others may have been more successful. I want to present a balanced approach so, in fairness to HMRC, I would be interested to hear the experience of readers who are satisfied with the service they are receiving. Mike Warburton was previously a tax director with accountants Grant Thornton and is now retired. His columns should not be taken as advice, or as a personal recommendation, but as a starting point for readers to undertake their own further research.
