India Today
์ค๋ ์ฑํฅ
๊ธฐํ
Not targeting India: US says its H-1B visa laws are being applied globally
Not targeting India: US says its H-1B visa laws are being applied globally
๐ฎ๐ณ ์ธ๋ ยท "APPLIED" ยท ์ด 7๊ฑด
ํํฐ ๋ณด๊ธฐํ์ฌ ์ง์
50.0
0 = ๋ถ์ ์ฐ์ธ
50 = ์ค๋ฆฝ
100 = ๊ธ์ ์ฐ์ธ
์ต๊ทผ 7์ผ ๊ธฐ์ค 6,218๊ฑด์ ๋ถ์ํ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ๋ด์ค ์ฌ๋ฆฌ์ง์๋ 50.0(๊ท ํ)์ ๋๋ค. ๊ธ์ 0๊ฑด(0.0%)ยท์ค๋ฆฝ 6,218๊ฑด(100.0%)ยท๋ถ์ 0๊ฑด(0.0%)์ด๋ฉฐ, ์ค๋ฆฝ ๋น์ค์ด ๋๋ ทํ๊ฒ ๋์ต๋๋ค. ์ฑํฅ ์ง์๋ ์ข ํฉ 0.0(์ค๋ ๊ท ํ)์ ๋๋ค.
Not targeting India: US says its H-1B visa laws are being applied globally
Over 16,000 students applied for CBSE re-evaluation within hours of the portal's launch, even as the portal faced a "barrage of cyberattacks."
The AP EAMCET 2026 result is expected to be released today by JNTU Kakinada on the official website. Candidates can access their scorecards using their registration number and EAMCET hall ticket number. The university is also likely to publish the rank list, which will be used during counselling and seat allotment. Rankings will be based entirely on AP EAPCET marks, with a normalisation process applied to ensure fairness across examination shifts.
NEW YORK: Businesses big and small have started receiving tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump lacked the constitutional authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from nearly every other country.The process could grind to a halt, however, after the Trump administration said Friday that it intended to appeal a federal judge's order to allow all companies that paid the invalidated duties to seek refunds, not just the ones that filed lawsuits.Until the Department of Justice informed the judge of its planned appeal, the refund system overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been working fairly smoothly. Refunds reached the bank accounts of the first successful applicants on May 12, about three weeks after importers and their customs brokers could start submitting claims through an online system, according to CBP.Applications for refunds totaling $85 billion - more than half of the $166 billion the agency estimated the government owes to companies that paid the tariffs on imported goods - were accepted for processing as of May 22, CBP reported in a legal filing earlier in the week. It said it had so far directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds.Also read | US probes Reid Hoffman group over funding lawsuits against Trump, source saysThe administration revealed its appeal preparations while objecting to a demand by Judge Richard K. Eaton for CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in the U.S. Court of International Trade to answer questions about how long it would take to repay all 330,000 importers that might be eligible for refunds. The judge scheduled a June 9 hearing on why he shouldn't require the government do whatever it takes to speed up the process.Justice Department lawyers asked Eaton to allow one or two of Scott's deputies to appear in his place, arguing that as a high-ranking presidential appointee, the CBP chief could not be compelled to testify. They also argued that Eaton exceeded his authority when he determined in March that the Supreme Court's ruling entitled "all importers of record'' to refunds."For that reason, defendants intend to appeal the court's universal injunction," the lawyers wrote, adding that CBP would continue to move "as quicky as it can to process refunds in a phased approach" for businesses that filed legal complaints asserting their rights to refunds.In a written reply, Eaton said he needed to hear directly from Scott whether the government would return all of the money it collected between when Trump put what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in April 2025 and when the Supreme Court struck them down in late February."It is undisputed that the remedy for this unlawful collection is for the United States government to refund the unlawfully collected duties," the judge wrote.Refunds coming in phasesMore than 1,000 companies, including large ones like Costco, Goodyear Tire, banana and pineapple distributor Dole Fresh Fruit, and department store chain Kohl's, filed lawsuits to recoup their tariff costs. The judge said Wednesday he intended to allow cases he put on hold while CBP figured out how to handle refund claims - they numbered 485 in mid-March - to proceed.Also read | Minority union at Samsung Electronics to challenge pay deal in courtCustoms and Border Protection is handling refund claims in phases, focusing first on payments that weren't finalized before the Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 decision. CBP officials have said those later payments were more straightforward to process.Importers are required to make estimated tariff payments when goods enter the U.S. The declared items then enter a process called "liquidation," in which CBP determines how much in import taxes was owed. The decision becomes final after 180 days unless the payer contests the bill.In Friday's filing, the Justice Department said the agency did not have the technological ability or the legal authority to recalculate liquidated accounts without "importer-specific orders" in each lawsuit.Price cuts promisedSome national retail chains said they planned to use their tariff refunds refunds to lower customer prices on some items. Walmart Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey told analysts last week that the company would implement price cuts even though the maximum refund it might be eligible for represented less than half of 1% of Walmart's $483 billion in annual U.S. sales.Costco intends to return the tariff costs that it passed on to members, CEO Ron Vachris said. How much of its refund the big-box retail chain redistributes, when and in what form, depends on factors such as the size of the refund, when it arrives, and developments in a lawsuit seeking tariff compensation for Costco customers, Vachris told investors Thursday.Consumers could first see refunds from shipping companies such as FedEx, UPS and DHL, which acted as customs brokers when they delivered products ordered from overseas. The companies charged either the sellers that shipped the packages or the buyers who received them and turned the tariffs they collected over to CBP.All three promised to return any refunds they get to the customers that paid the import taxes. Last week, FedEx said it was "working to swiftly process refunds and return them to the shippers and consumers who originally bore those charges."Putting refunds back into the businessThe Supreme Court invalidated only the country-by-country tariff rates Trump set by citing the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Others he imposed under different rationales remain in effect. Trump also has moved to introduce new tariffs since the court's Feb. 20 ruling.Some smaller companies told The Associated Press that the tariff refunds they've received so far would go toward paying remaining or future tariffs or getting back on solid financial footing after more than a year of uncertainty and additional costs.Jay Foreman, CEO of toy company Basic Fun, said he received about $450,000, or 7% of his total claim, over two consecutive days. He took the repayment as a positive sign but said that after having less than $10,000 refunded since then, the process seemed like a "total slow roll.""It's time to release the funds back into the economy, especially given how much we and others need these funds to support our businesses and fund our operations," Foreman said.Men's grooming brand Manscaped has received about 30% of the $12 million in refunds it applied for, President Kevin Datoo said. He said the San Diego company deferred investments and took on debt to pay tariffs on imports from Indonesia, China and elsewhere in Asia last year."We need to shore up the balance sheet because there's still a whole second chapter here," Datoo said.Melkon Khosrovian, who owns Greenbar Distillery in Los Angeles, said he applied for a tariff refund of about $90,000 for 17 different shipments and has received $18,000 covering four of them. Certain types of herbs, spices and packaging are hard to find domestically, so Khosrovian said he imports them.The tariffs were "painful," he said. He invested money to automate his bottling process last year so he wouldn't have to pay as many workers. The move allowed him to reduce his 13-person staff by three, but Khosrovian noted that the White House had argued the tariffs would create more U.S. manufacturing jobs."Our choices were bad and worse: raise prices and lose customers, or keep prices the same and not make any money," he said.
Kerala man applied for job in 2005, gets appointment letter just before retirement
Mumbai: After a crushing court defeat, India's money gaming fraternity is now dreading whether the taxman would come after the companies' directors.The law allows the goods and service tax (GST) authorities to recover dues from board members of private limited companies if unpaid tax, interest, or penalty cannot be salvaged from the entities.Most real money gaming platforms were run by closely-held companies. While a director can escape personal liability if he demonstrates that the unpaid tax was not caused by gross neglect and wilful misstatement, many show cause notices, which triggered the legal feud, allege fraud and suppression of facts.Also read | Billionaire's FOMO: Ultra-rich pouring money into AI stackIn cases of frauds, the tax office can levy penalty of 100% of the tax demand. Platform managements are hoping for some relief from the fine print in Wednesday's Supreme Court (SC) judgement which upheld GST authorities stand to impose 28% tax on full value of bets. The ruling is yet to be released.By validating the SCNs, the SC effectively overturned earlier lower court rulings favouring gaming companies and dismissed the argument that 'games of skill' require different tax treatment under the GST framework for actionable claims.The GST Act provides for extended limitation period, enabling the department to issue SCNs up to five years from the due date of filing the relevant annual return in cases of fraud.131377275According to Ritesh Kanodia, partner, Aurtus Consulting, "There is strong legal support, including Supreme Court rulings, that when a matter involves a complex interpretation of the law, it cannot be treated as fraud or suppression. In this case, there was genuine ambiguity on whether GST applies at all and, if it does, on what value. Even the Karnataka High Court had earlier ruled in favour of taxpayers, which shows that the issue was debatable. Because of this, there is a strong argument that the 100% penalty may not be justified, thoughthe normal penalty (around 10%) may still apply."Ashish Karundia, founder of the eponymous CA firm, agreed that notices invoking the extended limitation period can certainly be challenged. "To sustain demands under Section 74, the department must establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. Gaming companies are likely to argue that their operations, filings, and transaction trails were fully disclosed, and that the dispute pertains purely to legal interpretation rather than any concealment of facts," said Karundia.If the department eventually chases the directors, it has to send separate notices and examine their roles individually.Also read | A blueprint for West Bengalโs evolution from an entrepot to a production hubHowever, for earlier periods (July 2017 to March 2020), companies may be eligible for the Government's amnesty scheme, which provides a full waiver of interest and penalties, provided fraud is not established (i.e., a Section 74 notice [100% penalty] gets converted into a Section 73 Notice [10% penalty]). So, in many cases, companies may ultimately end up paying only the tax amount, said Kanodia.The companies have sought 12 weeks to reply to the adjudication panel in the GST department which would be followed by final tax demands and appeals before higher courts.The GST law was amended in 2023 to make online gaming, casinos, and horse racing taxable at 28% on the full face value of bets, regardless of whether it's game of skill or chance. These changes, applied retrospectively, imposed liabilities for past periods when the law was not explicit. Before 2023 companies were paying 18% tax on the fees platforms collected.Last year, the government hurriedly enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act, 2025 that completely prohibits online money games. The SC order on Wednesday not only puts a large financial burden on gaming companies but may also weaken their argument that since gaming is a state subject, the activity cannot be banned by a central law.
Apple Inc. lost an early round in a discrimination lawsuit brought in the U.S. by a female engineer from India who says her two managers -- one from her country, the other from Pakistan -- treated her as they would in their own countries: as a subservient.The womanโs case in California state court is the latest to allege workplace bias in Silicon Valley that focuses on cultural prejudices of some tech workers from South Asia. Cisco Systems Inc. is fighting a suit brought by Californiaโs civil rights agency alleging bias against a member of Indiaโs so-called lower castes, known as Dalits.Anita Nariani Schulze is part of the Sindhi minority -- she is Hindu, with ancestry in the Sindh region of what is now Pakistan. Her complaint alleges that her senior and direct managers, both male, consistently excluded her from meetings while inviting her male counterparts, criticized her, micromanaged her work, and deprived her of bonuses, despite positive performance evaluations and significant team contributions.Schulze claims the managersโ animus reflects sexism, racism, religious bias and discrimination on the basis of national origin. The Sindhi Hindu nationality is โknown for its technical acumenโ and its gender equality, she says, which โexacerbated the managersโ discriminatory treatment.โIn a tentative ruling on Wednesday, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Sunil R. Kulkarni rejected Appleโs request to toss out the suit. While not ruling on the merits of the case, Kulkarni said Schulze had adequately supported her legal claims. Apple had argued her claims werenโt specific enough and were based on stereotypes.But the judge rejected Schulzeโs request to represent a class of female Apple employees who suffered job discrimination over the last four years. He agreed with Apple that she didnโt show a pattern of discrimination that could be applied to a broader group.It wasnโt clear from the courtโs docket whether the judge will hold a hearing Thursday before issuing a final ruling.Apple didnโt immediately reply to a request for comment.In the Cisco case, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleged that two Indian employees at the San Jose-based company discriminated against a Dalit co-worker on the basis of caste.Cisco has denied the claims, insisting it has โzero tolerance for discrimination.โ It also said the lawsuit should be tossed out because caste isnโt a protected category under U.S. civil rights law.