Lease Of Trust Land Application: Fill & Download for Free

They should be.It is high time that income tax be extended to both:farmers, andreligious institutesFarm income currently does not only include income from the produce, but also from leasing of agricultural land.In a reply to a question in Lok Sabha[1] , it was revealed that many major corporations have availed benefits of the tax exemption amounting to hundreds of crores.Total income declared for exemption was Rs 9000 crore. And this is just the declaration — a lot of folks in rural areas do not even file tax returns.Taxing the income would ensure many things:increased tax revenuemore robust tax data for analysismandatory filing of taxes would ensure that the farmers can avail the formal credit system by submitting their tax returns as proofA lot of the farmers have very small land holdings and can only produce enough to feed themselves. That is one of the key arguments for exempting farm income from taxation. And it should be the case. Plus even for folks that sell their produce, there is always the question of the “cost of production” which cannot be easily estimated — money paid to contract laborers, equipment cost, fuel, seeds, irrigation etc.However, the same can be mitigated to an extent considering the extension of the formal banking system to a large chunk of the population, and by devising a different tax structure for farmers.A 2015 report[2] by Prof Ranganathan found that almost two-thirds of the farmers own less than 1 hectare of land.Let’s assume that one hectare is just sufficient to feed the family and have some extra cash for other expenses. As such, farmers with declared lands of less than one or two hectare would directly come under exemption.For the rest, the same tax slabs could be applied with deductions allowed (on reproduction of proper bills, just like the way HRA and other deductibles work) up to a certain extent.There should also be classification based on what is being produced. There was a recent report[3] that a few select farmers were earning in excess of 3 lakh/acre by growing herbs etc which would translate to 7.5 lakh/hectare, which even after input cost deduction would easily come under the lowest tax bracket.Assuming half the population is in farming, and an average rural farming household has 5 people, we have about 12 crore families. As per the above data, 10% have land holdings above 2 hectare, implying 1.2 crore eligible taxpayers. We currently have 2.8 crore taxpayers (including the ones with zero tax liability). Even if their average tax liability is lower than the current taxpayer population, let’s say 50%, it would effectively mean adding another 0.6 crore taxpayers, increasing total income tax collection by about 20%, or about 2 lakh crore.The same should apply to all religious institutes who need to be run like a firm. Although some services provided by them have been brought under the ambit of GST — food tariffs, sale of cds, books etc — tax on income is still not applicable.If you have religious trusts earning hundreds of crores a year, you need to pay taxes just like everyone else.Salaried individuals pay taxes on their income and then pay GST on stuff they buy.Such huge religious institutions should be mandated to follow proper accounting principles and be taxed under the corporate law.The Tirupati temple[4] alone earned more than 2800 crore in 2018 as income. Assuming a paltry 20% profit margin, it would have netted 500–600 crore in profits and should ideally have paid 150–200 crore as tax.An article in Deccan Herald[5] noted that the state had 171 temples earning more than 20L (and hence under the ambit of GST).It seems even gods cannot exempt themselves from GST, as 171 temples in Andhra Pradesh above Rs 20 lakh income have come under the new tax regime. There are 23,834 temples in the state, of which 45 temples come under the Rs 1 crore income category, 63 temples up to Rs 25 crore and seven temples with more than Rs 25 crore annual income, including Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), the country’s richest.45 — earning between 20L to 1 Crore; assume median of 50L63 — earning between 1 to 25 Crore; assume median of 10 Cr6 — earning more than 25 Crore; assume median of 100 Cr1 (Tirupati) — earning 3000 CrSum up and you get ~Rs 4000 Crore as the total income. Assuming 20% EBITA, the total taxable income should have been Rs 800 Crore, leading to about ~250 Crore in taxes.Andhra is home to about 4% of Indian population. Assuming uniform distribution of temples as per population, the total tax collection would have been 25x, or about Rs 6000 crore.Add Gurudwaras, Mosques, and Churches, and the government can net up to Rs 10,000 crore annually.Just like the separation of state and church in the western world, we need to separate the state from both religion and sentiment. In both cases, the small (farmers and temples) one, who just make enough for sustenance would not be affected.Footnotes[1] http://164.100.47.193/Annexture_New/lsq16/3/au2110.htm[2] http://qhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/303314984_Farmers'_Income_in_India_Evidence_from_Secondary_Data/download[3] Farmers earning as much as Rs 3 lakh per acre by cultivating herbs[4] TTD evaluates about Rs 2,894 crore revenue for 2018-19[5] 171 temples under GST

“The Moon landing was fake!"“The Earth is actually flat!"“Illuminati secretly rules the world!"And now “India is still a British colony!"No. NOOO!I'll put a rest to all arguments one by one:“India is a part of the Commonwealth”The confusion primarily arises from the fact that India is a part of the Commonwealth, so I'll just put this to rest once and for all.The Commonwealth is an organisation made up of former British colonies, which is led by the British monarch. That does not mean that the countries are ruled by the British monarch. It only means that this organisation, this club of voluntary participants, is presided over by the British Monarch.Compare this to the UN. The current General Secretary of the UN is Antonio Guterres, a Portugese politician and diplomat. Does that mean that Portugal rules the world or that Antonio Guterres is the ruler of the world? No, right?Being part of the Commonwealth is like being a member of a neighborhood kitty party. It has no bearing on the decisions you make in your own home. Only difference is that the head of this kitty party is fixed and does not change. The Commonwealth is a tooth-less cultural organisation that organizes meets and sports events.So why is India a part of it? Simply because after decolonization, it brought together new English speaking and developing nations facing similar challenges on a common platform and provided them an opportunity to expand relations and diplomacy. It’s the same as being a part of BRICS, SAARC, ASEAN and UN. The only difference between other organizations and the Commonwealth is that the member presiding over these meets does not change.“India became a Dominion in 1947”True. But we became a Republic in 1950, did we not? Have people forgotten what Republic Day is all about?India became a Dominion, so that it can work on forming it's own constitution. But the country cannot be law-less until that is done right? So British law was still applicable, until the constitution was drafted. Once that was done, the Indian Constitution became the only law of the land. The actions of the UK legislative have had no bearing on Indian laws thereafter.“India kept following British laws after Independence”Just answer this question - if murder was illegal under British rule, should it not have been illegal under home rule?Drafting of the constitution used a lot of British made laws, simply because it was practical. The Indian Penal Code was used just as it was, because it did not make sense to change each and every crime and punishment at the time.The Consitution had bigger matters to deal with, like of structure of the Government, the powers of Central Government, State Governments, the President, Governors, the Supreme Court, High Courts, Cabinet, Parliament, what rights should the citizen have, how would government exercise its power, etc. This was a very complex task that required a lot of vision and discussion. They could not have been bothered with what should be the punishment for stealing rice or selling weed.In programming terms, they used pre-existing libraries to make their process efficient.Since then, the Indian constitution and British contitution have grown apart. Britain decriminalized homosexuality in 1967, India did so in 2018. India has a reservation system, Britain never did.Closing ArgumentsIndia decides it's own foreign and military policy. It decides who becomes her ally and who it fights with. Had British ruled India, would they have allowed Communist Russians to become India's key ally? Has India ever been obliged to fight any of the wars British fought later? In Falklands, Suez, Northern Ireland, Gulf War, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq or Cyprus?Indian Prime Minister is elected by the people of India. The President is elected by the Indian legislative bodies. The Chief Justice is appointed by the Indian President. Indian currency is backed by Reserve Bank of India and the Governor of RBI is appointed by the Cabinet. Indian military chiefs are appointed by the President. The CAG, Police, IB, EC, CVC, all powerful offices are appointed by order of Indian President. Our elected Ministers decide how the economy runs, what we import, what we export and from whom.So what power exactly does Britain have over us today? Can the conspiracy theorists please answer this one question?ConclusionSome people love to think that they have discovered some hidden secret others have missed. In the age of internet, any crackpot can publish his delusional crap and find a few supporters. Just ignore these nutjobs and have faith that not everyone has been lying to you all your life.If India really were a British colony, trust me, they would have made their presence felt.Jai Hind.

This is what I have read-THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LAND:The truth is from the beginning of World War I, much of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi nomads and Bedouins. In 1946, the British Mandate Government surveyed the land, ownership was as follows: 70% owned by the British government, in trust for the Jewish National Homeland transferred by international law to Israel 8.6% owned by Jews 3.3% owned by resident Arabs 16.5% owned by non-resident ArabsWhen Jews started to buy Arab lands, Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David BenGurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population.". Ben Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: "They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay." .In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi alQawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded. The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.". Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.In his memoirs, Jordan's King Abdullah wrote: "It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping ."Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell.Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews. The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres.Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad elShuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.The weekly Fasl al-Maqal, owned by Arab- Israeli parliament deputy Azmi Beshara and based in the predominantly Arab city of Nazareth in north Israel, ran a list of 54 leading Palestinians who sold land to Jews from 1918-1945. The paper reported that Palestinian nationalist leaders, including the grandfather of the PLO's current top official in Jerusalem, sold land to Jews in the years before Israel's founding. The paper ran a story titled "Our Fathers On The Take," takes the issue back to the era of the British mandate before Israel's founding in 1948, when the Zionist movement was seeking land in Palestine to create a Jewish state. The paper reports that some of those highest up in the Palestinian nationalist movement which opposed the Jewish state were at the same time selling land to the Jewish Agency, the body spearheading the Zionist drive. The weekly's editor-in-chief, Awad Abdel Fatah reports that the names came from an official document dating back to the British mandate in Palestine, which the paper received from official sources in Jordan. He said, "We published only a partial list from the document, showing the role of the Palestinian leadership in the flow of lands to the Jewish Agency before the disaster of 1948," he said.The names are embarrassing to the PA as one is a relative of Yasir Arafat and he is one of the most prominent names on the list. His name is Mohammed Taher al-Husseni, father of al-Hajj Amin al-Husseni, the mufti of Jerusalem and supreme head of the Palestinian nationalist movement. Another was Kazem al-Husseni, grandfather on the mother's side of Faisal Husseni, the top PLO official in Jerusalem. Kazem sold lands in Jerusalem, where he was mayor from 1918-1920. The list includes five other members of the Husseni family, one of the most prominent clans in pre-1948 Palestine and today. Other members of leading Palestinian families also showed up on the list, as did members of the High Arab Committee, the High Islamic Council and the Arab Executive Committee, the main bodies which led the nascent Palestinian nationalist movement against Zionism. Mussa al-Alami, who headed the Palestinian delegation to the London Conference of 1939 convened to discuss the future of mandate Palestine, sold 90 hectares (222 acres) to Jews in Bisan, now the north Israeli city of Beit Shean, according to the list. Ragheb al-Nashashibi, mayor of Jerusalem from 1920-1934 and head of the National Defense Party, sold over 120 hectares (296 acres) of land in Jaffa, outside Tel Aviv. Nashashibi also sold land in east Jerusalem upon which Hebrew University was later built. Yaakub al-Ghussein, who headed the Arab Fund created to gather money to support the Palestinian cause, sold land to Jews in Jaffa and what is now the Gaza Strip for 4,000 Palestinian pounds, equivalent to British pound sterling at that era. And the other elite Muslim and Christian families of Palestine, including the Abdel Hadi, Bseiso, and Fahum clans, were represented on the list.The Jews before the wars were already living as peasants, bought lands, cultivated them after years of neglect. The Jews restored the land and made it what it is today having an economy ten times the size of that of Egypt, Jordan and Syria combined, while the Arabs have been plotting wars against her since the 1920s and instead of wiping out every Jew in the area, it has resulted in the displacement of almost 1/2 the Palestinians since 1948.