This reminds me my own experience of M P . I sent one file of Ratnamani Engineering Limited some years back to ask one question about MCA/the Then Department of Company Affairs. The same file was sold to Ratnamani Engineering Limited made money out of it!!!! The Great M P.... How is their behavior !!!!
How to treat MPs – Government reiterates Instructions for officials
The guidelines concerning official dealings between Administration and Members of Parliament and State Legislatures have been issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and reiterated from time to time. The provisions of the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure regarding prompt disposal of communications from MPs have also been reiterated from time to time. However, keeping in view the instances of occasional non-observance of the above guidelines, a need was felt by the Committee of Privileges of the Lok Sabha for consolidating and reiterating the existing instructions. Accordingly, revised comprehensive guidelines were issued by this Department vide Office Memorandum No. 11013/4/2011-Estt.(A) dated 1″ December 2011 (copy enclosed). A copy of former Secretary (P)'s D.O. No. 11013/4/2011-Estt.(A) dated 9th October, 2012 reiterating the said instructions is also enclosed for ready reference.
The existing Instructions are hereby appropriately strengthened to emphasize the basic principles to be borne In mind by the Government servants while Interacting with the Members of Parliament and State Legislatures. These are as follows :-
(i) Government servants should show courtesy and consideration to Members of Parliament and State Legislatures;
(ii) while the Government servants should consider carefully or listen patiently to what the Members of Parliament and of the State Legislatures may have to say, the Government servant should always act according to his own best judgment and as per the rules;
(iii) Any deviation from an appointment made with a Member of ParliarnenVState Legislature must be promptly explained to him to avoid any possible inconvenience. Fresh appointment should be fixed in consultation with him;
(iv) An officer should be meticulously correct and courteous and rise to receive and see off a Member of Parliament/State Legislature visiting him. Arrangements may be made to receive the Members of Parliament when, after taking prior appointment, they visit the officer of the Government of India, State Government or local Government. Arrangements may also be made to permit entry of vehicles of the Members to these Offices subject to security requirements/restrictions;
(v) Members of Parliament of the area should invariably be invited to public functions organized by a Government office. Proper and comfortable seating arrangements at public functions and proper order of seating on the dais should be made for Members keeping in view the fact that they appear above officers of the rank of Secretaries to Government of India in the Warrant of Precedence; The invitation cards and media events, if organized for the function held in the constituency, may include the names of , the Members of that constituency who have confirmed participation in these functions.
It is clarified that if a constituency of any Member of Parliament is spread over more than one District, the M.P should invariably be invited to all the functions held In any of the Districts which are part of his/her constituency;
(vi) Where any meeting convened by the Government is to be attended by Members of Parliament, special care should be taken to see that notice is given to them In good time regarding the date, time, venue etc. of the meeting, It should also be ensured that there is no slip in any matter of detail, however minor it may be. It should especially be ensured that:–
(a) intimations regarding public meetings/functions are sent through speedier communication devices to the M.Ps, so that they reach them well in time, and
(b) that receipt of Intimation by the M,P is confirmed by the officer / official concerned;
(vii) Letters from Members of Parliament and Members of State Legislatures must be promptly acknowledged, and a reply sent at an appropriate level expeditiously as per the relevant provisions of the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure;
(viii) Information or statistics relating to matters of local importance must be furnished to the MPs and MLAs when asked for. The information so supplied should be specific and answer the points raised. A soft copy of the information should also be sent to the Member via e-mail;
(ix) if the information sought by a Member of Parliament cannot be given and is to be refused, instructions from a higher authority should be taken and the reasons for not furnishing the information should be given in the reply;
(x) Wherever any letter from a Member of Parliament is in English and the reply is required to be given in Hindi in terms of the Official Languages Act, 1963 and the rules framed there under, an English translation should also be sent along with the reply for the convenience of such Members of Parliament from non Hindi speaking areas;
(xi) References from the Committees of Parliament must be attended to promptly;
(xii) The officers should not ignore telephonic messages left for them by the Members of Parliament/State Legislatures in their absence and should try to contact at the earliest the Member of Parliament/State Legislature concerned. These instructions also include SMS and e-mails received on official mobile telephones which also should be replied to promptly and on priority;
(xiii) All Ministries/Departments may ensure that the powers of Members of Parliament/State Legislatures as Chairpersons! Members of committees under various Centrally Sponsored/Central Sector government schemes are clearly and adequately defined; and
(xiv) A Government servant should not approach MPs/MLAs for sponsoring his individual case as bringing or attempting to bring political or non-official. or other outside influence is prohibited under the conduct Rules e.g. Rule 18 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules.
Built Operate Transfer Project: Allowability of depreciation on Toll Road Constructed
Navneet Singal
In the case of BUILT OPERATE and TRANFER PROJECTS ('BOT'), Under the concessionaire agreement between the Government and the developer, the developer is required to construct, develop and maintain the infrastructural facility of roads, highways etc. at its own cost and its utilization for a specified period. The developer collects toll from the user of such facility as consideration.
In such BOT arrangements, as a matter of general practice, possession of land is handed over to the developer by the Government/notified authority for project without any actual transfer of ownership and such taxpayer has only a right to develop and maintain such asset. At the end of the specified period, the developer may generally be required to hand over the infrastructure facility to the government at free of cost.
It is a matter of debate before courts/tribunals about the eligibility of depreciation on toll road. This issue has been dealt in number of Tribunal and courts. The CBDT vide its circular No. 9 Dated 23rd April, 2014 has clarified that the cost of construction on development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT basis may be amortized evenly over the period of the concessionaire agreement after excluding the time taken for creation of such facility. However, different decision has been taken in courts/Tribunal which can be elaborated as further:
- The entire cost of construction and development of the infrastructure facility had to be amortized evenly over the period of the concessionaire agreement and allowed as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act.
- The cost incurred for the development and construction of the infrastructure facility on BOT basis was treated as 'License/right to collect toll' and hence the same was intangible asset entitled for depreciation. (ACIT v. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. (ITA No. 2317/PN/2012). Ashoka Info (P.) Ltd v. ACIT [2010] 35 SOT 50 (Pune).
- The toll road is eligible for depreciation even through the taxpayer is not the legal owner of the road. In some of the cases, it has been held that told road would fall under the head of 'building and is eligible for depreciation at 10%. CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. ITA No. 2 of 2012, November 8, 2012
- The Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239ITR775 (SC) has held that the term 'owned' as occurring in Section 32(1) of the Act must be assigned a wider meaning. The tax benefit on account of depreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the Capital asset and there cannot be two owners of the property simultaneously. The depreciation is allowable to the person in whom for the time-being vests and who has the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right.
Recently, in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. v. CIT (ITA No. 499 of 2012), the Bombay High Court has held that depreciation is not allowable on toll road constructed under the BOT basis since the toll road belongs to the Government and the assessee want not the owner of the said road. The ownership of the National Highway, being that of the Government, it can never be said to be divested of that absolute right by engagement of any person or by entrusting any of the functions of the authority to him.
However, the Bombay High Court in this case has not considered the ownership criteria on the basis of Income Tax Act, 1961 but on the basis of National Highways Act, 1956 or the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988. The High Court has held that as per these Acts the assessee is not the owner of toll road which was constructed and maintained by it and therefore, depreciation cannot be allowed on the same. Further, it is to be mentioned that the CBDT circular as mentioned above has not been considered in this decision.
After going through the above decision, it can be opined that even Bombay High Court has held that depreciation is not allowable on toll road constructed under the BOT basis though after the clarification by the CBDT and the decision of other Courts and Tribunal the cost of construction on development should be amortized evenly over the period of the concessionaire agreement after excluding the time taken for creation of such facility.
Expl 2 to S. 132B, though inserted w.e.f. 1.6.2013, is retrospective and seized cash cannot be adjusted against advance-tax liability
(i) As per provisions of section 132B of the Act the assets seized u/s 132 or requisitioned u/s 132A may be adjusted towards the amount of any "existing liability". The Explanation 2 to section 132B of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.6.2013 clarifies that for removal of doubts it is hereby […] Read more of this post
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment