Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Tuesday 28 June 2011 09:22 AM, ss wrote: On Tuesday 28 Jun 2011 7:04:12 am Nikhil Mehra wrote: Actually, I didn't respond to the Pakistan reference. I responded to Mauritius reference. I realize that. But the Mauritius reference came up because the Pakistani Rupee comment was taken seriously. shiv Lighten up y'all. Let's focus on a different country now. I think Borat would vote for Kazakhstan. The best thing is, they don't take jokes seriously. --V
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Tuesday 28 Jun 2011 12:25:35 pm Venkat Mangudi wrote: Lighten up y'all. Let's focus on a different country now. I think Borat would vote for Kazakhstan. The best thing is, they don't take jokes seriously. grrr I object to that! LOL shiv
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On 6/27/11 9:14 PM June 27, 2011, ss wrote: Lighten up people Sheryl Crow - Soak up the Sun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ivz7cqXHKc shiv Oh, if you're going to be listening to Sheryl Crow, you really need to listen to this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FseuxxcTlvA -- Heather Madrone (heat...@madrone.com) http://www.sunsplinter.blogspot.com I'd love to change the world, but they won't give me access to the source code.
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Tuesday 28 Jun 2011 11:08:41 pm Heather Madrone wrote: Oh, if you're going to be listening to Sheryl Crow, you really need to listen to this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FseuxxcTlvA ^^+1 shiv
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Tuesday 28 June 2011 06:56 AM, ss wrote: Folks - my Pakistan reference was meant to be a joke in response to a light topic (cricket) started by Deepa. Since when did cricket become a light topic? I demand to know. It's ironic that all content is taken seriously and only lack of content in emails is considered fun. Of course the reference to the Mauritius rupee and Sachin's double-agent (non-)nature was serious. I don't see how one can (or should) expect inherently serious topics like cricket and double-agency and religious figures to be be 'fun' (whatever that means). I realize that. But the Mauritius reference came up because the Pakistani Rupee comment was taken seriously. And facts are just as sacrosanct as religion and deadpan humour and bad puns. Misleading people as to the extent of the rupee as a currency and as to the patriotic fervour of the master blaster (aka god) might seem like harmless fun now. Only with age and experience will you come to understand the harms.[1] - Pranesh [1]: How many of you parents have actually used this line? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Wednesday 29 June 2011 10:30 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: Since when did cricket become a light topic? I demand to know. Yes, Pranesh. You're absolutely right. Folks, they play cricket in the night too these days. Henceforth please consider cricket as a Light and Night topic. Only with age and experience will you come to understand the harms.[1] What I have heard is this variation. Remember they say this because of their age and experience. Cheers No Cheers, --V
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Pranesh Prakash the.solips...@gmail.comwrote: Sachin is no Pakistani double-agent. He probably has closer ties with Mauritius. It is possible that he's using the Mauritius route, but as of now no one is using the Mauritius route because the tax deptt is sniffing. Also, Sachin hasn't been a prolific investor outside of core businesses, in which case Mauritius makes no sense.
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Tuesday 28 Jun 2011 1:42:14 am Nikhil Mehra wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Pranesh Prakash the.solips...@gmail.comwrote: Sachin is no Pakistani double-agent. He probably has closer ties with Mauritius. It is possible that he's using the Mauritius route, but as of now no one is using the Mauritius route because the tax deptt is sniffing. Also, Sachin hasn't been a prolific investor outside of core businesses, in which case Mauritius makes no sense. Folks - my Pakistan reference was meant to be a joke in response to a light topic (cricket) started by Deepa. It's ironic that all content is taken seriously and only lack of content in emails is considered fun. Nothing is fun huh? shiv
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:56 AM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote: Folks - my Pakistan reference was meant to be a joke in response to a light topic (cricket) started by Deepa. It's ironic that all content is taken seriously and only lack of content in emails is considered fun. Actually, I didn't respond to the Pakistan reference. I responded to Mauritius reference.
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Tuesday 28 Jun 2011 7:04:12 am Nikhil Mehra wrote: Actually, I didn't respond to the Pakistan reference. I responded to Mauritius reference. I realize that. But the Mauritius reference came up because the Pakistani Rupee comment was taken seriously. shiv
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
Nobody takes right wing jokes as jokes, unfortunately --Original Message-- From: ss Sender: silklist-bounces+suresh=hserus@lists.hserus.net To: silklist@lists.hserus.net ReplyTo: silklist@lists.hserus.net Subject: Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin? Sent: Jun 28, 2011 09:22 On Tuesday 28 Jun 2011 7:04:12 am Nikhil Mehra wrote: Actually, I didn't respond to the Pakistan reference. I responded to Mauritius reference. I realize that. But the Mauritius reference came up because the Pakistani Rupee comment was taken seriously. shiv -- srs (blackberry)
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Tuesday 28 Jun 2011 9:28:13 am Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Nobody takes right wing jokes as jokes, unfortunately LOL! What a dour and serious bunch we have here. The only light thing I have seen on here was an empty email that no one thought was offensive. And that lighhearted banter didn't last long and someone or the other was rubbed the wrong way. Lighten up people Sheryl Crow - Soak up the Sun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ivz7cqXHKc shiv
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Saturday 18 June 2011 06:16 AM, ss wrote: earned X Rupees in foreign currency. That is odd. It could only have been Pakistani Rupees because no country other than india and the Real India (Pakistan) use the Rupee as currency. Other countries that use the rupee: Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives (rufiyaa), Mauritius, and some others that I'm sure I'm forgetting. Sachin is no Pakistani double-agent. He probably has closer ties with Mauritius. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Saturday 18 Jun 2011 11:41:03 pm Vinayak Hegde wrote: Public figure saves money by twisting the law. Almost every individual I know does this. eg. declaring receipts for medical bills after giving a cut to the chemist from where the bills are procured. Why do we hold public figures to higher standards than our colleagues or neighbours for aspects of their lives that have nothing to do with them being famous ? Er chillax. Every person who does not have tax deducted from his cheque at source is given a list of thins he can claim against tax. The right thing to do is to make the claim. That is the sensible thing to do. It may be disputed. If it is disputed and you lose - you pay the tax. If not you get a refund. It;'s that simpl. There no immorality here. Any accountant who helps you with tax returns will tell you that. I have often been advised that it is impiortant to be open and pay tax. The tax man may not be able to check every paisa but provided you are within some bounds you can get off. What Sachin's tax advisers have done is what hndreds of thousnads of people do perfectly legally as a matter of course. It is only the unusually large amounts that have caught the taxman's eye. It is th people who earn crores and do not pay tax at all who are the real problem. Not Sachin Tendulkar. shiv
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On 19-Jun-2011, at 2:14 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday 18 Jun 2011 Er chillax. Every person who does not have tax deducted from his cheque at source is given a list of thins he can claim against tax. The right thing to do is to make the claim. That is the sensible thing to do. It may be disputed. If it is disputed and you lose - you pay the tax. If not you get a refund. It;'s that simpl. There no immorality here. Any accountant who helps you with tax returns will tell you that. There is another angle to it. The more favorable tax rate for artists is on the principle that artists have a shorter earning span and therefore, deserve special treatment. However, the same principle should apply to sportspeople as well. It is another matter that Sachin has broken that record (presumed longevity) as well! Regards, Nandkumar
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Nandkumar Saravade sarav...@gmail.comwrote: There is another angle to it. The more favorable tax rate for artists is on the principle that artists have a shorter earning span and therefore, deserve special treatment. However, the same principle should apply to sportspeople as well. It is another matter that Sachin has broken that record (presumed longevity) as well! The point is actually whether a person can wear two hats. So Sachin gets benefit as an actor because his longevity as an actor is minimal. And he gets benefit for being a professional cricketer as well for the same reason. Just depends on the activity which was the source of income. It is highly likely that Sachin's acting career will far outlive his cricketing career. Regards, Nikhil Mehra Advocate, Supreme Court of India Tel: (+91) 9810776904 Res: C-I/10, AIIMS Campus, Ansari Nagar (East) New Delhi - 110029.
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Deepa Mohan mohande...@gmail.com wrote: There seems to be no discussion about cricket on this listor about actingcan someone tell me how these two very odd figures (in the first sentence) were arrived at? Public figure saves money by twisting the law. Almost every individual I know does this. eg. declaring receipts for medical bills after giving a cut to the chemist from where the bills are procured. Why do we hold public figures to higher standards than our colleagues or neighbours for aspects of their lives that have nothing to do with them being famous ? -- Vinayak PS: Amitabh Bachchan is also a 'farmer'
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Vinayak Hegde vinay...@gmail.com wrote: Public figure saves money by twisting the law. Almost every individual I know does this. eg. declaring receipts for medical bills after giving a cut to the chemist from where the bills are procured. Why do we hold public figures to higher standards than our colleagues or neighbours for aspects of their lives that have nothing to do with them being famous ? Also, what's the morality behind paying every rupee of tax that may possibly be levied? There is a clear difference between tax avoidance and evasion. He's (his advisors, actually) devised a clever ruse to obtain a legitimate tax benefit. As in a legal one. He makes a claim to that benefit, and the way it works is that the adjudication mechanism under the IT Act decides. Kinda like waiting for the umpire to raise the finger before trudging off the field. No one's a walker and the system as it is set up does not require anyone to be. If he succeeds then he paves the way for a lot of people in the future. Income from adverts is that obtained through his skills as an actor. And income from cricket is income obtained from his daily job. The key issue is whether a person can be a dual professional. Both an actor and a cricketer depending on the activity from which the income in questions arises. I think it's outlandish, but it's inventive enough to be tested under the provisions of the TAx Act. This is not a case of twisting the system or the law. This is the sort of argumentation that has been the sine qua non of the common law system. It leads to the development of the law in a more rapid manner and also compels greater legislative precision and clarity in the event that the concerned Legislature disagrees with the court's ruling. Unless there's an allegation that he influenced or corrupted a member of the judiciary, I don't think this is a case where a Public figure saves money by twisting the law.
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On Saturday 18 Jun 2011 1:05:19 am Deepa Mohan wrote: There seems to be no discussion about cricket on this listor about actingcan someone tell me how these two very odd figures (in the first sentence) were arrived at? Deepa - this is the first sentence (below). It seems to say Sachin Tendulkar earned X Rupees in foreign currency. That is odd. It could only have been Pakistani Rupees because no country other than india and the Real India (Pakistan) use the Rupee as currency. Otherwise he should have earned it as Dollars/Yen/Euro/Dinar/Renminbi/Wampum no? *Sachin Tendulkar was levied an income tax of Rs 2,08,59,707 on an income of Rs 5,92,31,211 he earned from ESPN Star Sports, Pepsico and Visa in foreign currency during 2001-02 and 2004-05.* But since the Pakistani Rupee is worth about half as much as the Indian Rupee, Tendulkar has earned only hals as much as he is alleged to have earned. Naturally he should be liable for lower tax. shiv
Re: [silk] How can we call him Sachin?
On 17 Jun 2011, at 20:35, Deepa Mohan mohande...@gmail.com wrote: There seems to be no discussion about cricket on this listor about actingcan someone tell me how these two very odd figures (in the first sentence) were arrived at? Sachin Tendulkar changes 'job' to save tax Sachin Tendulkar was levied an income tax of Rs 2,08,59,707 on an income of Rs 5,92,31,211 he earned from ESPN Star Sports, Pepsico and Visa in foreign currency during 2001-02 and 2004-05. Sachin Tendulkar, super God of cricket, has formally declared that he is an actor and not a cricketer. The excuse: he models for TV advertisements. In order to save tax of around Rs 2 crore ($465,000) on income derived from doing TV commercials, Tendulkar told the Income Tax tribunal that acting, not cricket, is his profession. The tribunal accepted that he is an artist on the grounds that he has to use his own skills, imagination and creativity in the commercials. Tendulkar was levied an income tax of Rs 2,08,59,707 on the income of Rs 5,92,31,211 that he earned from ESPN Star Sports, PepsiCo and Visa in foreign currency during 2001-02 and 2004-05. He had challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeal (CIT-A), to pay up. In an order on May 20, the tribunal ruled that Tendulkar could claim deduction in tax on his income from modelling as he is an artist. Tendulkar had claimed deduction of tax under Section 80RR of the Income Tax Act. The section states that a person can claim tax deduction if he is a playwright, artist, musician, actor or sportsman and the income for which deduction is claimed is derived by him in the exercise of his profession. When the assessing officer asked Tendulkar to explain the nature of his profession, the master blaster submitted that he is a popular model who acts in various commercials for endorsing products of various companies. He further stated that the income derived by him from 'acting' had been reflected as income from business and profession whereas income from playing cricket was reflected as income from other sources since he is a non-professional cricketer. Tendulkar explained that the claimed deduction in tax was from the exercise of his profession as an 'actor'. The assessing officer rejected Tendulkar's claim and looked up the dictionary for the meaning of the term 'professional'. It could be correct to say that playing cricket is the source of his livelihood and is therefore his profession, the officer observed, adding that if Sachin is not a cricketer, then who is a cricketer? He noted that Tendulkar had received remuneration for providing a wide variety of services to these companies. The various activities mentioned in the agreement with these companies had nothing to do with his claim of being an actor. Therefore, the officer said, his claim was not justified. Tendulkar has an agreement with these companies for the use of the name, photo, original voice, clothing, footwear, playing product spokesman, personal and media appearances. It is true that while appearing in ad films Tendulkar would have to dress in a certain way and would have to follow the script suggested by the director. However, that does not make him an actor. In all the advertisements in which he appears, what is highlighted is his personality as a cricketer. It is important to note that the company that wants Tendulkar to endorse its brand uses him because he is Sachin Tendulkar, the cricketing legend, the officer noted. After his claim was rejected, Tendulkar submitted that he should be considered an 'artist' for the purpose of Section 80RR. He submitted that the meaning of 'artist' be read along with the several clauses of the endorsement agreements. However, the CIT-A did not buy this argument. He ruled: Tendulkar is primarily involved in playing cricket and irrespective of whether he is a professional or not, it cannot be disputed that his profession is playing cricket. Tendulkar is not being paid for his activities as an actor or his performance as an artist. The nature and quality of his acting or performance as an artist would never have resulted in the contracts and payments made out to him. Tendulkar appealed against this ruling to the tribunal. An earlier ruling by the tribunal allowing tax deduction to actor Amitabh Bachchan helped his case. In 2004, the tribunal had ruled that the income derived by Bachchan as a host of TV show Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) was liable for deduction of tax under Section 80RR because he used his skills as an artist in the show. Asha Vijayaraghavan, judicial member of the tribunal, and R.K. Panda, accountant member, ruled: While appearing in advertisements and commercials Tendulkar has to face the lights and camera. As a model he brings to his work a degree of imagination, creativity and skill to
