BUDGET 2011-solar power/perk value taxation

IT IS QUITE SURPRISING THAT BUDGET IS NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF SOLAR POWER WITH ANY BIG THRUST. IS IT BECAUSE THE COST PRODUCTION OF SOLAR POWER FOR THE TIME BEING IS COSTLY? BUT IN FUTURE IT HAS ADVANTAGE AS MASS USAGE MAY LEAD TO MORE RESEARCH WHICH MAY BRING DOWN COST. MASS INVOLVEMENT IN SOLAR POWER IS YET TO PICK UP; BUT NOW FRESH INCENTIVES TO INCULCATE MASS INVOLVEMENT IN SOLAR POWER.

IN DIRECT TAXES THE FM SHOULD HAVE RE-CONSIDERED PERK VALUE TAXATION ON INTEREST CONCESSION AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS(RQ). ESPECIALLY IN CASE OF BANKS TRANSFERABILITY ie NATURE OF JOB MAKES PEOPLE TO AVAIL RQ FROM EMPLOYER. FURTHER ANY EMPLOYER EXPECTS ITS OFFICIALS TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN STATUS. THUS RQ IS NOT A FACILITY IT IS A NECESSITY DUE TO NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT.

LIKEWSIE IN BANKS INTEREST CONCESSIONS ON HOUSING AND VEHICLE LOANS ARE EXTENDED NOT ONLY AS EMPLOYEE WELFARE MEASURE BUT ALSO AS A POLICY MATTER OF GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR ALL AND TO DEVELOP AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY. HENCE PERKS ON INTEREST CONCESSIONS ON HOUSING LOAN AND VEHICLE LOAN DESERVES TO BE DROPPED PER SE. FOR OTHER LOANS IT SHOULD BE COST FUND FOR BANKS SHOULD BE CRITERIA AND NOT ANY OTHER NOTIONAL RATE OF INTEREST THAT TOO FOR LOANS BEYOND A YEAR'S GROSS SALARY.

IN FACT AS PER CANONS OF TAXATION THE PERK VALUE TAXATION ON INTEREST AND HOUSING AND REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES BECOMES RETROGATIVE.IT IS QUITE SURPRISING THAT THE PERK VALUE TAXATION ON MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENTS CONTINUE AS IT HITS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE WHO IS SUFFERING IN FAMILY FRONT WITH HEALTH PROBLEMS. WHY MULTIPLE LICENSING/REGISTRATION FOR HOSPITALS WHEN THEY ARE REGISTERED WITH THEIR LOCAL BODIES AND OTHERWISE ALSO WHY AN ASSESSEE WHO GETS REIMBURSEMENT SHOULD SUFFER INSTEAD OF HOSPITAL. IN SAME HOSPITAL IF ONE GETS REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH MEDI CLAIM INSURANCE IT IS NOT TAXABLE BUT IF HE GETS FROM EMPLOYER TAXABLE.Such employee suffer by fate with ill health in their family and Government rubs them with perk value tax on medical reimbursement. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVES ie MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT KEEP QUIET ON SUCH ISSUES?

OLD GENERATION PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS-A CASE FOR NATIONALISATION

THE SOCIAL CONTROL FOLLOWED BY NATIONALISATION OF BANKS IN 1969 HAD BROUGHT OUT GOOD CHANGE IN ECONOMY. TO IMPROVE UPON THE NOW WE ARE GOING FOR FINANCIAL INCLUSION. THE NEW GENERATION PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS MAILY CONCENTRATE ON HIGHEND AND HIGH MIDDLE INCOME SEGMENTS BUT FOR SYMBOLIC SHOWs. BUT NATIONALISED BANKS GO FOR LOW INCOME AND MID INCOME SEGMENT.UNLIKE THE NEW GENERATION PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS WHICH RELY ON INDIRECT FINANCING TO ACCOMPLISH THE PRIORITY SECTOR TARGETS, THE ESTABLISHED PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS(OLD GENERATION PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS) ALSO FUNCTIONED ALMOST IN LINE WITH NATIONALISED BANKS. HENCE THEIR PENETRATION POWER AMONG PEOPLE OF LOW/MID INCOME SEGMENT IS MORE THAN NEW GENERATION PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS. THE GOVERNMENT OPENING UP THE BANKING SECTOR FOR PRIVATE PLAYERS ESPECIALLY DELIMITING VOTING RIGHTS OF FOREIGN INVESTORS WILL HAVE SERIOUS OWNERSHIP AND FUNCTIONAL IMPACT ON THESE ESTABLISHED PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS. STATKEHOLDERS INCLUDING LOW/MID INCOME PUBLIC WILL BE AFFECTED BY SUCH TAKEOVERS. INORGANIC ENTRY OF NEW PRIVATE PLAYERS INTO BANKING SPACE MAY HAVE TO BE CURTAILED. HENCE THE GOVERNMENT SHALL HAVE TO NATIONALISE OR MERGE WITH NATIONALISED BANKS THE ESTABLISHED(OLD GENERATION) PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS WHICH WERE FORMED BEFORE 1980 ie YEAR IN WHICH SECOND DOSE OF NATIONALISATION WAS DONE. This will make new players to create new space ie organic establishment exercise and not inorganic efforts of eating into existing space.As banking controls due to deposits more funds than share value by buying share private players may try to rest control of disproportionately higher finance in their hands. By nationalisation the customers and staff of existing established private sector banks also will feel secure and industrial disturbances will less.