Posted: March 18, 2017 Filed under: Co-operative Societies, Income Tax
If a property-owner is getting a rent of more than Rs50,000 per month (pm), then the rent-payer is required to deduct tax at source (TDS) @5%. It will create a trail for the income-tax (I-T) department to ensure that the property-owner has shown the rent in her/ his tax returns and has paid the taxes. Anyone earning more than Rs6 lakh a year as rental income must declare it in the tax returns; but people find ways to circumvent it. Hence, a new Section,194-I B, has been introduced in Budget 2017. The proposed change is effective 1 June 2017.
To make for easier compliance, it is proposed that the rent-payer need not obtain a TAN (tax deduction and collection account number) and is required to deduct the tax only once in a financial year. The TDS has to be deposited through a challan-cum-statement, for which the PAN of the property-owner is needed. The tenant is not required to file a separate TDS return for this purpose.
It has also been proposed that “tax shall be deducted on such income at the time of credit of rent, for the last month of the previous year, or the last month of tenancy if the property is vacated during the year, to the account of the payee, or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier.”
For example, if you are paying a rent of Rs55,000 per month, payment of the rent for March 2018 will need deduction of 5% TDS on the total rent paid for FY17-18. TDS will be 5% of Rs55,000 for 12 months, i.e., Rs33,000. It is to be deposited with the I-T department. So, for the March 2018 rent, you pay the property-owner Rs55,000 minus Rs33,000, that is Rs22,000. If you vacate the place before March 2018, you will deduct the 5% TDS during the last month of your rent payment.
If you are a property-owner who shows the rental income in your tax returns, you don’t have to worry. Property-owners can take credit of TDS against their total tax due while filing tax returns. However, anyone getting a rent of over Rs6 lakh a year but unwilling to show it in tax returns, is asking for trouble. According to the existing laws, any renter who claims tax exemption under HRA will have to furnish the PAN of the property-owner if the annual rent exceeds Rs1 lakh. Moreover, the data will be available at the time of stamp duty/lease registration. Those who receive rental income need to properly report the income as the I-T department can easily find this information.
Posted: February 24, 2017 Filed under: Co-operative Societies, Right to Information (RTI)
Notwithstanding the myriad opinions and interpretations of several court judgments on whether cooperative societies come under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a recent landmark judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court reiterates that urban cooperative banks, cooperative financial institutions and other cooperative societies are bound by the Act.
The Association of Jalgaon Zilla Urban Cooperative Banks, Credit Societies and other financial institutions registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, appealed in a petition to the High Court that cooperative institutions cannot be treated as public authority under the RTI Act.
They contended, “In view of the provisions of Section 2(h) and Section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005, cooperative institutions registered under the Cooperative Societies Act cannot be treated as public authority.”
They also argued that under banking rules too certain information cannot be disclosed. Their contention was that in view of the provision of section 34A of the Banking 3 WP 1304 of 2008 Regulation Act, 1949, these institutions are not bound to disclose certain information which, according to them, is confidential in nature.
The petitioners also argued that “these institutions are not receiving financial aid from the Government, directly or indirectly, and so the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to them”.
The petitioners, in their prayer, urged the court to declare cooperative societies and others as “not public authorities” under the RTI Act. Following was their submission:
- The urban cooperative banks, cooperative financial institutions, Patpedhis (credit cooperative societies) and other cooperative societies, which are registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, are not public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.
- These institutions stand exempted from disclosure of information u/s 8)1 (d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act
- That the court issue a writ, order or direction restraining the officers of the cooperative department from supplying any information to the members or general public which is, according to the said societies, confidential in nature.
- The court, pending the hearing and final decision of the writ petition, restrain the respondent from disclosing any information other than the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts of the cooperative societies, urban banks and Patpedhis to the general public under Right to Information Act.
In its order issued on 13 February 2017, the court observed that cooperative institutions, are registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and that cooperative societies and other such institutions are created by a statute; that they have a public authority over them which is the final decision-making body.
Certain Articles of the Constitution also show that such institutions are discharging the duty of the State and there is an ‘authority’ over them, which is the final decision-making body and the co-operatives are bound to supply information (all of which comes under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act), to this authority. Hence, cooperative societies and other such institutions are bound to supply information under the RTI Act, the HC said.
The High Court observed:
- Cooperative institutions are bodies created by the statute. But right from the registration till the liquidation there is control over these institutions by the authority created under the same Act. The authority steps in to take decisions on the rights of the members. The authority has control over the manner in which funds are invested or over the distribution of the funds. Such institutions cannot act independently and the apex bodies are created for such institutions.
- Even Articles 38,39,43 and 48 of the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution show that to some extent such institutions are discharging the duty of the State
- The provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act show that the authority under the Act can do the audit and inquire into irregularities. If loss is caused to the institution, by the directors, promoters etc., the authority can assess the damage, and the loss caused to the institution can be recovered from those persons. Under the Act, the authority can suspend the managing committee and remove its members. For all these and other purposes mentioned in the Cooperative Societies Act, the cooperative institution is bound to supply the record to the authority.
- The provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, if read with the definition of information given in Section 2(f) of the Act, makes it clear that everything which is mentioned in the definition of information needs to be supplied by the cooperative institution to the authority created under the Cooperative Societies Act. The definition of ‘Public Authority’ given in Section 2(h) shows that such public authority can be created by any law made by the State Legislature. It is already observed that the officers like Registrar and his subordinate officers are appointed under the Cooperative Societies Act.
The High Court therefore concluded that, “…the reliefs claimed in the present petition cannot be granted as the reliefs can be used 14 WP 1304 of 2008 directly or indirectly by the cooperative institutions to deny the supply of the information… This Court holds that no relief which is claimed in the present petition can be given to the petitioner.”
RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, who has been pursuing this issue for long, says, “After the Supreme Court’s order in Thalappalam Services Cooperfative Bank Ltd. against State of Kerala, public authorities and public information officers (PIOs) said the RTI act was not applicable to cooperative societies. Actually even in the Thalappalam case, the apex court, in paragraph 52 of its judgment, had categorically stated that the PIO of Registrar of Cooperative Societies is duty bound to supply the information. But even then PIOs and cooperative societies were denying the information sought under RTI.”
Below is a copy of the order passed by Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court…
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005, and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book, “To The Last Bullet – The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart – Ashok Kamte”, with Vinita Kamte, and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”
Posted: October 30, 2016 Filed under: Co-operative Societies, Consumer Law and Cases
BMC cannot disconnect water supply as punishment says HC
WATER IS A BASIC NECESSITY OF LIFE AND IS COVERED UNDER ONE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE
Posted: October 16, 2016 Filed under: Co-operative Societies
Allotment of flat without OC is illegal; The builder must get occupancy certificate on time. In case of any delay, the builder must compensate the buyer with rent for that period; Latest NCDRC Order….. to read more Click https://t.co/kPP0WNeblm
Bombay HC: Illegal to move into property without occupation certificate
MUMBAI: It is against the law to move into flats in buildings without the mandatory municipal occupation certificate (OC), the Bombay high court has ruled. A division bench of Justice S C Dharmadhikari and Justice Gautam Patel sought action against 49 flat owners as well as a nursing home in two wings of a building with six wings in Sion East.
Posted: October 14, 2016 Filed under: Co-operative Societies, Telecom
To implement procedure and practice for installing Mobile Towers on the terrace or to display advertisement board / hoarding on the building of the Co-operative Housing / Premises Societies:
Posted: October 10, 2016 Filed under: Co-operative Societies, Consumer Law and Cases
India’s Highest Consumer Court Brings Relief To Thousands Of Home Buyers A 3-member bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that all buyers of a housing project will be made party to any case filed against the real estate developer by another buyer. A move that dramatically increases the scale of lawsuits filed against errant builders while benefiting thousands of home buyers across the country. ….to read more click http://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.com/2016/10/indias-highest-consumer-court-brings.html
CONSUMER AS KING – Bldrs with pending cases can’t delay projects unless construction is stayed
Builders usually come up with some excuse to in an attempt to justify their lapses and delay . In a re cent ruling, the Maharashtra State Commission has held that this is not permissible…. to read more click
Posted: September 30, 2016 Filed under: Co-operative Societies, Consumer Law and Cases
“Victims of RNA Corp.” OR Victims of Any Unscrupulous Builder, What are the options available for Home Buyer and Aggrieved Flat Owners in Redevelopment Project
How to File a Complaint against a Builder, What are the options available
Any citizen can file a case against a developer. There are several options and situations under which a property buyer can file a complaint. Types of complaints are:
2. Consumer case
3. Suit for Specific Performance of Contract
On the following grounds in which a property buyer can drag an incompetent property developer on violations/ breach of ground
Non-execution of relevant sale agreement despite having received a substantial advance amount
Non-issuance of copies of all relevant documents viz.; development agreement, power of attorney, sanctioned plan (by concerned Regional Authorities), specification of construction materials/design as per sanctioned plan and any other relevant documents
Charged higher than the agreed amount
No issuance of proper receipt(s) against the paid amount
Poor quality construction
Delivering of a house not complying to agreed specifications
No free parking space within the premises
Did not form a co-operative housing society and handed over to members
Non-provision of water storage tank
Non-provision of proper ventilation and light
Delayed possession beyond the stipulated time limit
Not obtaining completion certificate from the concerned registered (by the authorities) architect
Non-issuance of Occupancy Certificate at the time of delivery of respective flats/house to its occupants
Non-declaration of expenses against which the developer collected money
And many more…
Click Here for more