Citizens' Issues
Abu Salem, driver sentenced to life imprisonment in Pradeep Jain murder case

For killing Mumbai builder Pradeep Jain in 1995, gangster Abu Salem and his driver Mehndi Hassan were sentenced to life imprisonment by special TADA court. Another accused, 86-year old Virendra Jhamb’s sentence was set off against the period of detention undergone by him 


Extradited gangster Abu Salem on Wednesday was sentenced to life imprisonment by a special TADA court in the 1995 murder case of Mumbai-based builder Pradeep Jain.
"Abu Salem is sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences of murder and criminal conspiracy," observed special TADA Judge GA Sanap while reading out the verdict.
The court also handed out life imprisonment to Salem's driver Mehndi Hassan. Another accused Virendra Jhamb's sentence was set off against the period of detention undergone by him in prison during the various stages of investigation in the case.
86-year-old Jhamb was in jail for nearly nine months after his arrest in 2005 in connection with the murder of Jain.
Earlier, the Court rejected prosecution's demand of death sentence to Hassan.
According to police, on 7 March 1995, Jain was shot dead by assailants outside his Juhu bungalow after he allegedly refused to part with his huge property to Salem.
Since then, Salem, Jhamb and Hassan were facing trial in the case. While accused Naeem Khan turned approver, another accused Riyaz Siddiqui, who had also become approver, later turned hostile in the court.
Trial of Siddiqui was later separated.
In January 2014, the Court had dropped some sections against Salem in the case after the prosecution sought for the same saying that some charges need to be withdrawn in order to maintain cordial relations between two sovereign countries - India and Portugal.
Salem, an accused in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, was extradited from Portugal on 11 November 2005, after a prolonged legal battle.
The Supreme Court of Portugal, in 2012, had dismissed an appeal of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had challenged termination of his extradition. Salem also moved Supreme Court of Portugal seeking directions to the Indian government to execute its order of cancelling his extradition.
In June 2012, Salem was shot at in Taloja Central jail in Navi Mumbai allegedly by gangster Devendra Jagtap alias JD, an accused in the murder case of advocate Shahid Azmi who had represented a 26/11 Mumbai attack accused.




2 years ago

Abu Salem, driver sentenced to life imprisonment in Pradeep Jain murder case- A 40 crore costed to the Gov.,to bring back and still to cost keeping whole life like a INSURANCE COVER !!

Taxation of investment vehicles: Will the Budget set right the distortions - I

Financial markets are hopeful that the Budget will clarify different and confused tax provisions regarding investment vehicles such as mutual funds, trusts and private equities


All over the world, there are clear rules for being eligible for pass-through status, but unfortunately, the principles on representative taxation in India have never been designed to tax collective investment devices. These principles have been created over the years to tax trusts where tax payers may create pools of assets/ income which beneficially belong to a tax payer, but are not legally his. Therefore, there are situations where such a “representative assessee” is required to pay tax at maximum marginal rate (MMR) which defeats the purpose of these collective investment vehicles at the first place.
The least what Finance Minister Arun Jaitley should do, in Budget 2015, is to set right the highly distorted scene of taxation of investment vehicles. These vehicles include the private equity (PE) funds and venture capital funds (VCFs), collectively called alternative investment funds (AIFs), securitisation vehicles, real estate investment trusts (REITs) and infrastructure investment trusts (InvITs). Lest you should think these are some esoteric instruments that don’t matter to the country’s economy in general, you are actually mistaken. Each of these investment vehicles is crucial for the country’s economy:
A large part of the foreign direct investment into the country comes through these vehicles. Over years, private equity funds have brought billions of funds into the country.  The India Private Equity Report, 2014 states that in 2014, Indian PE industry did deals worth $11.8 billion -- lower than the 2011 levels which were at $14.8 billion. It is important to note that capital is much more important than debt- capital and is like the foundation of a business on which the edifice of debt is built.
Securitisation activity is crucial for the business model of the non-banking finance companies in the country which supplement bankers’ access to the so-called priority sector lending market. NBFCs are instruments of financial inclusion, and their business model substantially hinges on securitisation. 
REITs have been proposed in the last Budget, but have not taken off at all. REITs are expected to be crucial in reviving or unlocking investments in commercial real estate. Commercial real estate has a substantial multiplier effect - it brings employment, affects core sector industries, and so on.
Infrastructure investment trusts, another non-starter, was expected to revive the so-very-crucial infrastructure sector in the country. 
Tax issues continue to baffle funds:
Currently, the tax law pertaining to taxation of investment conduits is either legislatively uncertain, or is lopsided. The different taxing principles under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for taxing different forms of investment vehicles in India are as follows:
Mutual funds, taxed under Section 115 R
Venture capital funds, taxed under Section 10 (23FB) read with Section 115U
Alternative investment funds – no tax provisions, hence, taxed under normal tax principles of representative taxation
Securitisation trusts – taxed under Section 115TA to 115TC (Chapter XII EA)
Real estate investment trusts – Section 10 (23FC), 10 (23FD) and 10 (38) read with Section 115 UA
All other collective investment vehicles – no tax provisions, hence, taxed under normal tax principles of representative taxation
The various fund structures existing in India are covered by different tax regime. Even though the fund structures are similar, the practice of applying different tax principles on them is not clear. This divergence creates much ambiguity on the whole. In some investment vehicles there is a partial pass-through and in some cases there is representative taxation made applicable. While the intent with which each of these vehicles is set up is similar, the tax implications vary across vehicles.
Most of these vehicles are set up in a trust form (a non-charitable business trust) and there have several issues with regard to such trusts being revocable, determinate, discretionary or otherwise. The tax treatment of these trusts has been dependent on the nature of these trusts.

The critical issue in taxation for consideration, for all these conduits is whether there will be a pass-through for tax purposes, or the fund is a tax-opaque entity. A pass-through taxation is the most convenient form of taxation, as the investors pay their own taxes, and the fund as a collective investment device is not required to pay any taxes at the fund level. All the more there is no duplication of taxes or leakage of taxes. On the other hand, if there is a claim to tax as an AOP, company, firm or as a representative assessee, the fund itself is not tax transparent. The tax officer taxes the fund; the distributions made by the fund may not be chargeable to tax. 
Far from following a clean pass-through principle, the Indian system is extremely muddy, allowing for contradictory interpretations. A recent ruling of Bangalore Income Tax Tribunal has shown this. We explain that in the next part, and also how to clean things up.
(Vinod Kothari is a chartered accountant, trainer and author. Nidhi Bothra is executive vice president at Vinod Kothari Consultants Pvt Ltd)


Now, you can port your mobile number across circles

TRAI has allowed pan-India mobile number portability from 3rd May. This will allow mobile subscribers to retain and use same number with local mobile operator across the country


Mobile subscribers in India will be able to port their numbers anywhere in the country while changing service providers from 3rd May. 
While amending a regulation, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) said, it has "...issued sixth amendment to the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulation, 2009, which will facilitate full mobile number portability (MNP) in the country, from 3 May 2015.”
At present, mobile number portability or MNP allows subscribers to change their service provider while retaining the same number only within a telecom circle, which in most cases, is limited to a State.
A person, for instance, while shifting from Mumbai to Kolkata or Tamil Nadu will be able to retain the same mobile number while selecting a service provider in that new location.
On 3 November 2014, the Department of Telecom (DoT) had issued amendments to the MNP licence agreement stating that MNP is to be implemented across the country within six months from the date of amendment of the licences.
“Accordingly, the Authority has made the Sixth Amendment to the MNP Regulations effective from 3 May 2015,” TRAI said. 


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)