Officials said there were instances where land sold to developers was used to show capital gains as agricultural income. In some cases, officials used satellite maps to detect misuse of tax provision

New Delhi: The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has come across several cases where individuals have claimed income tax exemption on agricultural income without land ownership. Over 300 cases have been identified by the authorities – through data analysis alone – where the claimed exempt income was between Rs 50 lakh and Rs 400 crore, but the declared size of land holding was zero. According to CBDT officials, in these 310 cases, the amount of exemption claimed – meaning tax foregone by the government – ​​is Rs 2,038 crore. The investigation revealed that various devices were used to make “non-genuine” claims, including including capital gains as agricultural income. Officials said there were instances where land was sold to developers and capital gains on it were sought to be shown as agricultural income. In some cases, officials used satellite maps to detect misuse of the tax provision. There were also instances where undisclosed income was shown as agricultural income in tax returns – a move aimed not only at avoiding paying tax but also at money laundering. Similarly, tax authorities came across cases where related activities were shown as agriculture to avoid paying tax on income earned. Apart from cases where there was no documentary evidence to show agricultural activity, authorities have also come across cases where there was a massive mismatch in income, which was often disproportionate to the size of land holdings. The tax department, which is deploying tools to better analyze data as part of Saksham, conducted the investigation by collecting tax returns and matching some of them with high levels of farm income. Based on data from over 300 cases, it is urging taxpayers to update or amend their returns to accurately reflect their income and pay tax accordingly. The data was based on tax returns filed from assessment year 2021-22 (FY2020-21) to assessment year 2023-24 (FY2022-23). Going forward, there are calls for using more tools to prevent such misuse of tax provisions. For example, satellite images are being used to keep track of the type of produce coming out of farms for which exemption is being claimed on the basis of agricultural income. While there is no move to tamper with the rebates available or go after smaller producers, the idea is to ensure that the big fish, claiming bigger rebates, do not get away with making false claims.

MS Dhoni and Ruturaj Gaikwad (Image Credit: BCCI/IPL)

New Delhi: Will ms dhoni Play in IPL 2027? The future of Dhoni, who did not play a single match in IPL 2026, remains uncertain. After Chennai Super Kings suffered an embarrassing 89-run defeat at the hands of Gujarat Titans in their IPL 2026 clash at the Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad, CSK captain Ruturaj Gaikwad was asked about his team’s disappointing campaign, with the main question being whether Dhoni will be a part of the team next season.When asked, “Will MS Dhoni play next year?” Gaikwad admitted that even the dressing room is unsure about the veteran’s return in IPL 2027.“Obviously you’ll find out next year. Even I’ll find out next year. Obviously, it’s definitely a tough, tough miss for us. He’s someone who can strike fear into the opposition, especially in those last overs. Being at the crease can really change the game, really change the momentum. So, he’s someone we’ve definitely missed a lot this season. But, I mean, we never know about next season, but obviously we’re very happy with the guys we have and the experience they’ve got this year,” Gaikwad said.Dhoni was initially ruled out for the first two weeks of the season due to a calf injury. However, the former India captain never returned as the tournament progressed. He also did not accompany the team to Ahmedabad for the final league match against Gujarat Titans.CSK’s defeat on Thursday officially ended their playoff hopes and their IPL 2026 campaign. He played 14 matches, winning 6 and losing 8, finishing with 12 points and a net run rate of -0.345.After being invited to bat by CSK, Gujarat Titans posted a massive score of 229/4 thanks to a 125-run opening partnership between Shubman Gill and Sai Sudarshan. In reply, CSK failed to mount a challenge and were bowled out for 140 runs.“Yes, also keeping that in mind, we wanted to chase the target as quickly as possible. And, obviously, when you are chasing 230 runs, in 20 overs anyway, it is not going to be easy with the kind of bowling attack they have. But, why not just give it a chance and just go out there and express. And obviously, credit to them. They outplayed us in all departments,” Gaikwad said.Asked if there were any regrets on winning the toss and choosing to field first in a crucial match, Gaikwad said: “Not really. I thought it was a little spongy in the beginning. Obviously, he got a good start. There were some mistakes in our bowling, we could not perform that well in the powerplay, especially in the case of those two. And once their opening batsmen get going, it is very difficult to stop them. So, obviously, even in between, there were phases where we could put capital in, we could limit them to 200. But we failed to do that today.”CSK lost the momentum after three consecutive wins against Mumbai Indians, Delhi Capitals and Lucknow Super Giants and then suffered three consecutive defeats against LSG, SRH and GT, causing a serious loss to their campaign.“Well, tough season to start, especially the hat-trick of defeats. And then after that, once we got that momentum, obviously we found people playing in the right places, the right combinations, everything started working. And then obviously, some injuries again and again didn’t really help much, especially Jamie and, you know, the absence of another all-rounder in Ramakrishna Ghosh made our playing 12 unstable. Gave. In the last three matches we played, we were always playing one batsman less or one bowler less. So obviously, a lot of people don’t really appreciate the fact that we are a young team, we are in a transition period and there are not a lot of players who are experienced enough, especially in the toughest competition,” he said.

CSK IPL 2026 season summary

“But given the fact that there are more than eight to ten players who have played less than 20 games, it’s good for them to have that experience, especially this year. We found out what areas we lacked and of course we still have to get six wins and some great wins. Really proud of the unit. There were a few games, as I said, when we traveled to Hyderabad, we missed chasing 80 in 10 overs and then the last time we played in Chennai, We could have limited them to 180 also. “So, there were some games where we could have crossed the line but failed to do so, but still very proud,” Gaikwad said.

Kamala Harris (file photo)

TOI correspondent from Washington: After months of secrecy, accusations, leaks and intra-party paranoia, the Democratic Party on Thursday released its long-awaited autopsy of the disastrous 2024 presidential campaign that resulted in Kamala Harris losing the election to Donald Trump, turning the post-mortem into yet another debacle. The 192-page review, written primarily by Democratic strategist Paul Rivera, aimed to explain how Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election to Trump despite massive fundraising, late enthusiasm after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and widespread Democratic warnings that the MAGA supremo represents an existential threat to American democracy. Instead, the report highlights a party that is still deeply divided over what exactly went wrong.The report paints a picture of a Democratic Party that is alienated from working-class voters, weak on economic messaging, culturally overextended and organizationally complacent. It argues that Democrats have lost credibility on immigration, public safety and inflation, while Republicans have successfully portrayed Harris as an ineffective manager of the Biden administration.Yet what may be most shocking is not what the autopsy says, but what it strangely avoids saying. The report notably sidesteps the continued scrutiny of Biden’s disastrous decision to run for re-election despite widespread voter concerns about his age and stamina — Democrats publicly dismissed those concerns until his disastrous debate performance forced them to withdraw. Nor does it seriously examine the chaotic process that led Harris to the nomination without a competitive primary after Biden leaves office in July 2024.That omission has angered many Democrats who believe the party establishment is still shielding senior figures like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer from accountability.The report barely touches on another politically explosive issue: divisions within the party over U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza, a conflict that has alienated many young and progressive voters. Critics were quick to note that the nearly 200-page document about Democratic collapse managed to avoid mentioning “Gaza” or “Palestine” in any meaningful way.The findings themselves often read less as a compilation of painful truths than a dramatic revelation Democrats have spent two years debating on podcasts, cable television and anguished group chats. The report concludes that Democrats failed to connect with Latino voters, men, rural Americans and young voters. The party remained heavily dependent on traditional media and remained far removed from the emerging digital ecosystem dominated by MAGA Republicans. It says Trump’s campaign learned more from organizing Barack Obama’s 2008 revolution than the Dems.The autopsy also criticized Democratic spending practices, suggesting that the Harris campaign spent astonishing amounts of money with questionable efficiency. Harris raised nearly $1 billion in a brief 107-day campaign but still failed to overcome voter dissatisfaction with the economy, immigration and perceptions of elite isolation.But the most extraordinary feature of the release is the Democratic National Committee’s own disclaimer attached to the document. DNC Chairman Ken Martin practically disowned the report when it was published, while acknowledging that the document was incomplete, unpolished, and lacking adequate sources. “I’m not proud of this product,” he admitted, while emphasizing that transparency required its release anyway.This defeat reflects the broader plight of the Democratic Party in 2028. On one side are established figures who argue that Dems need sharper messaging and better organization against the increasingly unpopular Trump administration. On the other side are progressive and young activists who believe the party suffers from something deeper: a leadership culture that is risk-averse, consultant-driven, overly managerial and fearful of real ideological conflict.Many Democrats privately acknowledged that Harris faced almost impossible odds after clinching the nomination late. The result was a campaign that often appeared torn between defending Biden’s record and promising generational change — an impossible political yoga pose.For now, Democrats are trying to focus on the 2026 midterms, where Trump’s polarizing presidency could once again help unify the anti-Republican vote. But the autopsy suggests the party still has no definitive answer to the big question that has been troubling it since 2024: whether Trump’s victory was an aberration — or evidence that Democrats have fundamentally lost touch with large sections of the American electorate.

Kamala Harris (file photo)

TOI correspondent from Washington: After months of secrecy, accusations, leaks and intra-party paranoia, the Democratic Party on Thursday released its long-awaited autopsy of the disastrous 2024 presidential campaign that resulted in Kamala Harris losing the election to Donald Trump, turning the post-mortem into yet another debacle. The 192-page review, written primarily by Democratic strategist Paul Rivera, aimed to explain how Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election to Trump despite massive fundraising, late enthusiasm after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and widespread Democratic warnings that the MAGA supremo represents an existential threat to American democracy. Instead, the report highlights a party that is still deeply divided over what exactly went wrong.The report paints a picture of a Democratic Party that is alienated from working-class voters, weak on economic messaging, culturally overextended and organizationally complacent. It argues that Democrats have lost credibility on immigration, public safety and inflation, while Republicans have successfully portrayed Harris as an ineffective manager of the Biden administration.Yet what may be most shocking is not what the autopsy says, but what it strangely avoids saying. The report notably sidesteps the continued scrutiny of Biden’s disastrous decision to run for re-election despite widespread voter concerns about his age and stamina — Democrats publicly dismissed those concerns until his disastrous debate performance forced them to withdraw. Nor does it seriously examine the chaotic process that led Harris to the nomination without a competitive primary after Biden leaves office in July 2024.That omission has angered many Democrats who believe the party establishment is still shielding senior figures like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer from accountability.The report barely touches on another politically explosive issue: divisions within the party over U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza, a conflict that has alienated many young and progressive voters. Critics were quick to note that the nearly 200-page document about Democratic collapse managed to avoid mentioning “Gaza” or “Palestine” in any meaningful way.The findings themselves often read less as a compilation of painful truths than a dramatic revelation Democrats have spent two years debating on podcasts, cable television and anguished group chats. The report concludes that Democrats failed to connect with Latino voters, men, rural Americans and young voters. The party remained heavily dependent on traditional media and remained far removed from the emerging digital ecosystem dominated by MAGA Republicans. It says Trump’s campaign learned more from organizing Barack Obama’s 2008 revolution than the Dems.The autopsy also criticized Democratic spending practices, suggesting that the Harris campaign spent astonishing amounts of money with questionable efficiency. Harris raised nearly $1 billion in a brief 107-day campaign but still failed to overcome voter dissatisfaction with the economy, immigration and perceptions of elite isolation.But the most extraordinary feature of the release is the Democratic National Committee’s own disclaimer attached to the document. DNC Chairman Ken Martin practically disowned the report when it was published, while acknowledging that the document was incomplete, unpolished, and lacking adequate sources. “I’m not proud of this product,” he admitted, while emphasizing that transparency required its release anyway.This defeat reflects the broader plight of the Democratic Party in 2028. On one side are established figures who argue that Dems need sharper messaging and better organization against the increasingly unpopular Trump administration. On the other side are progressive and young activists who believe the party suffers from something deeper: a leadership culture that is risk-averse, consultant-driven, overly managerial and fearful of real ideological conflict.Many Democrats privately acknowledged that Harris faced almost impossible odds after clinching the nomination late. The result was a campaign that often appeared torn between defending Biden’s record and promising generational change — an impossible political yoga pose.For now, Democrats are trying to focus on the 2026 midterms, where Trump’s polarizing presidency could once again help unify the anti-Republican vote. But the autopsy suggests the party still has no definitive answer to the big question that has been troubling it since 2024: whether Trump’s victory was an aberration — or evidence that Democrats have fundamentally lost touch with large sections of the American electorate.

Air France and Airbus blamed for fatal 2009 Atlantic flight crash

A Paris appeals court on Thursday found Air France and Airbus guilty of manslaughter over the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447, which killed all 228 people on board when it plunged into the Atlantic Ocean during a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. The verdict came after an eight-week trial into one of France’s deadliest aviation disasters. The court ruled that both companies were responsible for the accident, overturning an earlier ruling in 2023 that had freed them of criminal liability.Both Air France and Airbus were fined €225,000, the maximum fine under French law for this type of offence. However, several relatives of the victims said the sentence was too lenient considering the scale of the tragedy.The companies denied wrongdoing and said they would challenge the decision through legal means.Danielle Lamy, president of the AF447 victims’ association, whose son died in the crash, called the verdict an important step forward for grieving families demanding accountability. He said the verdict shows that authorities have begun to recognize “the pain of families facing a collective tragedy of unbearable cruelty”.Flight AF447 was carrying 216 passengers and 12 crew members from 33 countries when it crashed on June 1, 2009. The victims included 61 French citizens, 58 Brazilians, 26 Germans, five British, three Irish citizens and two Americans. Brazilian Prince Pedro Luis de Orléans e Bragança was among those killed.This disaster remains one of the aviation industry’s most complex accident investigation and recovery operations. Search teams searched nearly 10,000 square kilometers of the Atlantic Ocean for months before locating the wreckage. The flight recorders were eventually recovered in 2011 after a deep sea search operation.French investigators concluded in 2012 that a faulty airspeed sensor and pilot error caused the crash. During bad weather ice crystals blocked the aircraft’s pitot tubes, causing inconsistencies in speed readings that confused the aircraft’s systems. Investigators found that the pilots responded incorrectly after the plane entered an aerodynamic stall, causing the plane to rapidly lose altitude before crashing into the sea.The accident prompted major changes in aviation safety procedures, including better pilot training for high altitude stalls and replacement of airspeed sensors on Airbus aircraft.The victims included Nelson Marinho Filho, who boarded the plane moments before it took off after a near miss. His family waited for more than two years before burying his remains. Eleven-year-old Alexander Burroy, from Bristol, was returning to England after a holiday in Brazil, while Irish doctors Eithne Walls, Jane Deasy and Aisling Butler also died in the crash while returning from holiday.According to Air France, the captain had logged more than 11,000 flight hours, including 1,700 hours on the Airbus aircraft involved in the accident. The aircraft was last inspected in April 2009, a few weeks before the accident.

Bengaluru: Nearly four years after space PSU NewSpace India Limited (NSIL) was awarded the first private sector contract of Rs 860 crore to build five Polar Satellite Launch Vehicles (PSLV), space regulator Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Center (IN-SPACE) is offering complete transfer of technology (ToT) of the rocket to the industry.If the industry accepts the proposal, it will be the second rocket developed by ISRO whose technology will be transferred. Last year, IN-SPACe completed the ToT for ISRO’s Small Satellite Launch Vehicle (SSLV). The PSLV TOT move is surprising as the first PSLV, being manufactured by NSIL under the first industry contract awarded to the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited-Larsen & Toubro (HAL-L&T) consortium in 2022, has not yet been launched. The first rocket was supposed to be ready in 24 months, but it has almost doubled that time.In its EoI accessed by TOI, IN-SPACe said: The technology transfer aims to enable Indian industry to “realise, operate and commercialize PSLV launches in the global medium-lift satellite market”. According to IN-SPACe: “To ensure seamless technology absorption, infrastructure and hand-holding support will be provided by ISRO for a ‘defined period’ of 30 months or till the receipt and launch of two PSLV vehicles by the selected party, whichever is earlier.” EOI is restricted to Indian-owned non-government entities with significant industrial and aerospace capabilities. Eligible firms must have at least seven years of operations, five years of space or aerospace experience and an average turnover of more than Rs 400 crore or a valuation of more than Rs 1,000 crore.At the time of NSIL’s 2022 contract, officials had described the arrangement as a gradual outsourcing model. The rocket stages will be rapidly realized by industry, even though sensitive systems such as separation mechanism, inertial system and mission operations will continue to be under ISRO’s surveillance during the initial phase.The PSLV EOI raises questions about the preparedness of the industry to build and operate the rocket. While the consortium’s first PSLV has not yet flown, a similar pattern is visible with the SSLV programme: About a year ago, HAL won the full TOT bid for Rs 511 crore, becoming the first Indian company to acquire complete launch vehicle technology from ISRO.Unlike the PSLV manufacturing contract, the SSLV deal gives ownership of the rocket to HAL after the technology absorption phase. The company is expected to independently manufacture, market and launch SSLV missions after initial support from ISRO and IN-SPACe.But the first SSLV launch operated by HAL is nowhere close to being ready. PSLV remains India’s most trusted launcher with more than 50 missions since its first flight in 1993. It has launched major missions including Chandrayaan-1, Mars Orbiter Mission and Astrosat, besides deploying hundreds of foreign satellites.As for reforms in India’s space sector, the latest EOI signals that the government wants to accelerate the transition from an ISRO-led production model to an industry-driven launch ecosystem. Yet the slow progress of the first two privatization experiments – PSLV manufacturing and SSLV technology transfer – also highlights the complexity involved in moving launch vehicle capability from a state-run program into commercial hands.