New Income Tax Slab for FY-2010-11
New Income Slab for Individual
Income Slab Tax
Income upto Rs 1,60,000 Nil
Income from Rs 1,60,001 to 5.0L 10 %
Income from Rs 5,00,001 to 8L 20 %
Income above 8,00,000 30 %
30 %(Tax exemption under Infra Bonds Rs.20,000 from FY 2010-11)
New Income Slab for Women
Income Slab
Income upto Rs 1,90,000 Nil
Income from Rs 1,90,001 to 5 L 10 %
Income from Rs 5,00,001 to 8 L 20 %
Income above 8,00,000 30 %
Income above Rs 5,00,000
30 %(Tax exemption under Infra Bonds Rs.20,000 from FY 2010-11)
New Income Slab for Senior Citizen
Income upto Rs 2,40,000 Nil
Rs 2,40,001 to 5,00,000 10 %
Income from Rs 5,00,001 to 8L 20 %
Income above 8,00,000 30 %
30 %(Tax exemption under Infra Bonds Rs.20,000 from FY 2010-11) CGHS subscription will be exempted u/s 80D
No.13018/6/2009-Estt.(L)
ReplyDeleteGOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training)
…..
New Delhi, dated the 3rd March, 2010
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Implernentation of Government’s decision on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission-Child Care Leave Waiving of age restriction of 18 years for Government servant having mentally challenged/disabled children…
The undersigned is directed to refer to DOP&T OM No.13018/2/2008-Estt.(L), dated 11.9.2008 on the subject mentioned above and to say that this Department has been receiving various references regarding waiving of the age restriction of 18 years in respect of disabled/mentally challenged children for grant of Child Care Leave to women employees. The matter has been considered in consultation with Ministry of Finance and it has been decided to permit Child Care Leave to women employees with disabled children upto the age of 22 years for a maximum period of 2 years (i.e 730 days) subject to the other conditions stipulated by the Government in this regard from time to time. However, it is stressed that CCL cannot be demanded as a matter of right and under no circumstances can any employee proceed on CCL without prior approval of the Leave sanctioning authority. Disabled Child having a minimum disability of 40% is elaborated in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Notification 16-18/97-NI.I, dated 1.6.2001 (copy enclosed). Documents relating to the handicap as specified in the Notification, as well as a certificate from the Government Servant regarding dependency of the child on the Govt. servant would have to be submitted by the employee. The Child Care Leave would be permitted only if the child is dependent on the Government servant.
2. Hindi version will follow.
(Simmi R.Nakra)
Director (P&A)
Annexure
Dear BP,
ReplyDeleteAny comments on the merging the grade pay with the basic pay as per Supreme court.
@ Shri BP Singh ji
ReplyDeleteYou may like to go thru Maj Navdeep's latest post given below :-
http://www.indianmilitary.info/2010/03/rank-pay-is-part-of-basic-pay-sc.html
Do let us know what do you have to say now?
Dear Anony & Harry,
ReplyDeletePlease don't read much into SC order as it will not have any effect on existing pay band and Grade pay.
Moreover all court orders are case specific in nature and are not applicable to all unless Govt so desire.
Anyhow still good luck ?
Yes BP,
ReplyDeleteI feel we always jump over the gun and nothing happens at the end.This order may not result into any benifit to us
Dear BP and anoy above,
ReplyDeleteI suppose the Sc order is valid only for the Armed forces and not for all of you.................so don't have false hope that you all will be benefited. This issue is related to rank pay which was never there for you guys.
God bless
dear bp uncle, at least now you will agree that rank pay is part of basic pay and therefore all that was being said about rank equivalence by service officers is true. the next case will be for extending these to 5th and 6th pay comm. that too will happen soon.
ReplyDeleteAnony above
ReplyDeleteAll anony above on 11,12 &15 Mar.
False hope all of you.
Ltcol is till date equivalent to Second-in-Command only,if you have any oter order please paste the same.
Army officers above,
ReplyDeleteHold your horses and keep your self under control.One court order which means nothing to others officers created such a news ?.This indicate mental level of your class.
HUMAN LIFE VALUE(HLV)
ReplyDeleteYes. It’s a price tag on human life. Every humanbeing is priceless to his family. But it becomes necessary to evaluate a human life in terms of money, in order to safeguard from under-insurance problems. Under-insurance at times leaves no trace of insurance when it fails to serve the purpose for what it was effected. Insurance on Human Life should be sought keeping in mind, the financial loss that the family would suffer in his/her absense. Instead of buying Life insurance policies as a tool for reducing tax liability, provision for old age, to venture into stock markets on a small scale etc, it would make sense if insurance is sought from the angle of economic replacement of human life value.
Human Life Value concept was founded by Dr. Solomon S. Huebner, the founder of ‘The American College of Life Underwriters’, in the 1920’s. HLV concept is used by various professionals like Underwriters, Courts, etc. for determining the economic value for a Human Life. For the victims of the ‘Terrorist attack of September 11, 2001′ on the twin towers, courts decided the amount of settlement based on this concept.
HUMAN LIFE VALUE of a earning member in the family could be defined as the amount that the family would require to retain the same standard of living in the absence of the earning member. This would be the maximum amount for which a person can seek insurance protection.
Human Life Value based on Income:
The first step towards computation of Human life value would be to determine the net annual income of the person after deducting the amount spent by him for his personal use. This amount will be the amount that he affords to his family annually. Let us assume that the person is 40 years of age and his annual income after deducting all his personal expenses sums up to Rs.3,60,000. So, in order to get this amount annually in the absence of this earning member, his family would need Rs.45,00,000 on his demise (This assumption is based on investment of Rs.45,00,00 as fixed deposit @ rate of 8% interest per annum).
However, the erosion money value due to inflation was not taken into account in this method.
Human Life Value based on expenditure:
The more complex calculation of HLV is based on expenditure that the family has to meet out after the earning member’s life. The factors such as age of life expectency of spouse, number of children and their dependancy period on the family, monthly household expenditure, cost of inflation, outstanding loans etc., are to be taken into account in the calculation of this type of HLV.
Of course, the disposable assets if any the family posesses, value of the same could be deducted from the total amount that family needs. Say, if the earning member left behind an asset valued at Rs.20 lakhs the same could be deducted from Rs.45 lakhs of capital requirement of the family worked out. So, as per our illustration, the family would require Rs.25 lakhs in addtion to the disposable asseet valued at Rs.20 lakhs, to earn an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month
Home Ministry introduces flexi-hours for its employees
ReplyDeleteThe Home Ministry has allowed flexi-hours for it's employees with a maximum relaxation of two hours to attend social obligations or visit a doctor but they have to ensure a 40-hour work schedule in the week.
"In exceptional cases like consultation with doctors in Central Government Health Services, hospitals, attending social obligation, late arrival in the morning, early departure in afternoon up to two hours (maximum) will be allowed subject to the condition that prior intimation or approval of the immediate supervising officer has been obtained," Home Secretary G K Pillai said in an order.
The arrangement has been made after the ministry employees made two representations to Home Minister P Chidambaram on November 19 last year and March 3 this year.
Chidambaram had then assured the employees of working out a solution and subsequently asked Pillai to issue an order, sources said.
@ Shri BP Singh ji
ReplyDeleteHere is the Rank Pay case judgement for you to read and analyse.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
T.P. (C) No. 56/ 2007
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Union of India …Petitioners
Versus
N.K. Nair & Ors. …Respondents
THE ERRONEOUS FIXATION OF PAY IN RESPECT OF ARMED FORCES OFFICERS (ARMY, NAVY & AIR FORCE) PURSUANT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF IVTH PAY COMMISSION EFFECTED FROM 01.01.1986 SET RIGHT BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT.
Date : 08.03.2010 --------- Court – 07 ----- Item 84.
1. The recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission were accepted by the Central Government in respect of its employees including Armed Forces Officers and Men and given effect from 01.01.1986 vide Notification dated 18.03.1987. The IVth Pay Commission introduced rank pay for various ranks of the officers from Captain to Brigadier (equivalent ranks in Navy & Air Force) in addition to the pay in the integrated scale. However, while implementing the same. The rank pay was reduced from the new scale fixed for the officers.
2. One Major A.K. Dhannapalan – SL 7805 challenged this reduction in his O.P. No. 2448/1996 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum. The Hon’ble Single Judge of the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition on 05.10.1998 and held that the respondents have completely misunderstood the scope of extending benefit of rank pay to Armed Forces Officers. According to the High Court, rank pay is something which has been given to the army officers in addition to the existing pay scale. The Division Bench of the High Court was pleased to confirm the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge and dismissed the Appeal filed on behalf of the Union of India and Others vide W.A. No. 518/1999 on 04.07.2003. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. (Civil) no. CC-5908/2005 on 12.07.2005, filed by Union Of India & Ors. against the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala on grounds of delay.
3. While implementing the judgment in the case of Maj. Dhannapalan, Union of India gave all benefits to him alone and did not take any action on several representations submitted by the officers. This resulted into filing of a large number of writ petitions by similarly situated Armed Forces Officers all over India.
....(contd)
....(contd from previous comment)
ReplyDelete4. A Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56/2007 was filed on behalf of the Union of India & Ors. on 13.12.2006 under Article 139-A (1) of the Constitution of India with order 36-A of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 before the Apex Court praying for transfer of all the writ petitions pending before the various High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme court was pleased to issue notices in the aforesaid transfer petition on 05.02.2007 and passed orders for interim stay of further proceedings in all the High Courts. In this transfer petition, we filed appearance on behalf of about 50 petitioners in Kerala High Court led by N.K. Nair & Ors. (The main matter) and also filed a counter affidavit. On 03.11.2008, while hearing the I.A. filed on behalf of N.K. Nair & Ors., The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the counter affidavits in the main matter be treated as counter affidavit filed in all the matters mentioned in the transfer petitions and the matter be taken up for final disposal without waiting for completion of service on un-served petitioners of various writ petitions in the High Courts. by the similarly situated In the meantime, several intervention applications were filed in the aforesaid transfer petition apart from two Writ Petitions under Article 32 of Constitution of India. We also filed an intervention application on behalf of Retired Defence Officers Association, Disabled War Veterans (India), The Naval Foundation & Akhil Bhartiya Poorva Sainik Sewa Parishad.
5. The matter was heard and finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme court by the Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markendey Katju & Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha today i.e. 08.03.2010 (Court-7, Item-84). The Apex Court has held that the judgment dated 05.10.1998 of the Hon’ble Single Judge of Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 2448/1996 as confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the same High Court in W.A. NO. 518/1999 (Appeal) was correct and reasonable and as such the benefit of this judgment be extended to all eligible officers of Armed Forces. The Hon’ble Apex Court awarded 6% interest on the amount due to the officers. The Hon’ble Supreme court disposed of the transfer petition and allowed the writ petitions of the petitioners.
BP Singh ji now where is the doubt about its applicability?
RANK PAY IS PART OF BASIC PAY FOR OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES: SUPREME COURT
ReplyDeleteFinally... some heartening news indeed! Now the so called High Powered Committee set up to sort out gradepay issues will be able to finally dispense some justice.
Following needs to be done now:-
-Refix pay scales of 5th Pay Commmission after taking into consideration rank pay. After revised pay scales are worked out for each rank then refix new Grade Pay (Post 6th PC) as per reworked 5th PC scales.. New GP may become something like this:-
Capt - 6600
Maj - 7600
Lt Col - 8800 (new GP > 8700)
Col - 9500 (new GP > 8900)
Brig - 10000
Maj Gen - HAG
Lt Gen - HAG +
Army Cdr - 80000 Apex Grade
Chief - 90000 (fixed)
Note:- Earlier DIG was Senior to Lt Col and Junior to Col (even WoP corroborates the same)so his GP of 8900 justifiably lies between Lt Col and Col.
Another Landmark Judgement which is being eagerly awaited is inclusion of training period in Service (Case pending with Bombay HC). Inshallaha, when this comes through then it will be double victory for Service brethern. Lets keep our fingers crosed for this one.
OROP is third issue which the Govt will have to concede eventually.
Looks like tide is eventually turning for us.AMEN !
Cheers to all !
Dear Harry,
ReplyDeleteAs usual typical fauji,order is for 4th cpc and you started counting grade pay in 6th CPC.Grow up my dear fouzi what you will get is few hundred if at all govt agree for that.Stop this day dream and start working you ketuchp brigadiers
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Annony Above
ReplyDeleteI hope u understand simple English! I also know u are badly prejudiced and it shows in ur comments and l feel sorry for the same. Anyway I have no malice towards u.
If u can't digest this simple fact then what can I do, my friend?
SC has just accepted the plain old fact that rank pay formed part of basic pay which every fauji tried to explain to his non-fauji friend and u guys never accepted (as i t suited u guys that way). So its a sorta vindication for us !
@Shri BP Singh ji
ReplyDeleteHere is the Rank Pay case judgement for you to read and analyse.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
T.P. (C) No. 56/ 2007
dear harry
the above piece of article seems to
be a commentary on supreme court judgement and not the judgement itself , which is clear from the
language of this order .
it seems to be the work of a reporter .
please post the original detailed judgement if u have express some opinion on applicability of the judgement
thanks
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Rajkumar
ReplyDeleteOriginal judgement of SC on Rank pay case can be accessed at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28138706/Rank-Pay-Judgement
You may also refer Maj Navdeep's blog at www.indianmilitary.info for more inputs/comments.
Thanks.
dear harry
ReplyDeletei already follow maj navdeep blog and seen the order .
what is purpose to present an opinion or a write up to look like a supreme court judgement .
let us wait and watch the next move of the govt .
let us also not jump on a conclusion about the rank parity
of civilian v/ s armed forces
After going through the comments by friends like Harry and BPSingh and others it seems v r not happy if one class gets some delayed benefits and start a dog fight on that issue which is not warranted
ReplyDeleteSuggest v wish good luck to our brothers in arms
SC judgment is clear but lets wait and not start find fault in ourselvesregr
@ All
ReplyDeletePls see thsi link
http://epaper.dailypioneer.com/THEPIONEER/PIONEER/2010/03/22/ArticleHtmls/22_03_2010_005_003.shtml?Mode=1
Harry,
ReplyDeleteI hope with govt taking stand on pre 2006 retirement,no hope left for AF due to this court case.LTCol GP is bound to come down to equivalent of GP 7600 on next CPC
@Mr BP Singh
ReplyDeletePlease email me on navdeepsingh.india@gmail.com or leave your email address as a comment on my blog and I shall mail you back.
Thanks
Regards
Navdeep
MOST IMMEDIATE
ReplyDeleteNO. 12/3/2010-JCA-2
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
******
North Block, New Delhi Dated the 29th March, 2010.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Declaration of Holiday on 14th April, 201& Birthday of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.
It has been decided to declare Wednesday, the 14th April 2010, as a Closed Holiday on account of the birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, for all Central Government Offices including industrial establishments throughout India.
2. The above holiday is also being notified in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881).
3. All Ministries/Departments of Government of India may bring the above decision to the notice of all concerned.
(Dinesh Kapila)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India
CSD (CHENNAI – RATES AS ON JUNE-09
ReplyDeleteSAMSUNG – Washing Machine – CSD PRICE LIST
Index No. Item – Code No. Amount
21519 W/M – WA8074G – Fully Auto – 5.8 Kg. 7,424
21584 W/M – WT8503 – Semi Auto – 6.5 Kg. 5,862
21585 W/M – WA85TPL – Fully Auto – 6.5 Kg. 11,015
LG – Washing Machine – CSD PRICE LIST
Index No. Item – Code No. Amount
21521 W/M – WP9526 – Semi Auto 6,765
21522 W/M – WFT75 16HN – Fully Auto 11,364
21523 W/M – WF75 16HN- Fully Auto – 6.5 Kg. 12,093
WHIRPOOL – Washing Machine – CSD PRICE LIST
Index No. Item – Code No. Amount
21650 W/M – SuperWash – 6.5 Kg. 6,060
21651 W/M – WhiteMagic – 7 Kg. 7,583
21652 W/M – SuperWash – 6.5 Kg. 6,634
BAJAJ – TWO WHEELER Index No. Item – Code No. Amount
63029 Bajaj XCD-135E/S-Drum Brake 38,364
63030 Bajaj DiscoverSAMSUNG – COLOR TELEVISION – CSD
21914 CTV 21 – K44 Pure Flat Rs.5,858
21915 CTV 21 – S8 Rs.7,070
21916 CTV 21 – K44 Pure Flat Rs.5,858
21914 CTV 21 – K55 Pure Flat Rs.5,757
21917 CTV 29 – K44 Pure Flat Rs.10,605
21918 CTV 29 – T40 Pure Flat Rs.15,150
21919 CTV CS21 – K45 Pure Flat Rs.5,555
21914 CTV 21 – T13 Pure Flat Rs.9,494
22489 CTV LA 20S – LCD Rs.21,174
22490 CTV LA 23 A450 Rs.20,097
22491 CTV LA 32 A450 Rs.27,912
22492 CTV LA 40 A450 Rs.46,574
22493 CTV PLASMA PA 42 A 410L Rs.36,472
22494 CTV LA 32 A330 Rs.26,636
LG – COLOR TELEVISION – CSD PRICE LIST
Index No. Item – Code No. Amount
22517 CTV 21 FG 4AGE 7,018
22518 CTV 21 FA 2AG 6,037
22520 CTV 21 FG AGE 5,998
22521 CTV 21 FD 55VE 7,512
SAMSUNG – Refrigerator
67001
Ref – RA18 – NFO170Ltrs.
7,424
67002
Ref – RA20 – 190Ltrs.
8,464
67025
Ref – RT31 – F/F – 315Ltrs.
13,985
67026
Ref – RT34 – F/F – 330Ltrs.
15,750
67032
Ref – RT41 – F/F – 400Ltrs.
21,412
LG – Refrigerator
67163
Ref – LG – 275 – VM4
13,121
67019
Ref – LG – 305 – VM4
14,273
67020
Ref – LG – GL195 – NH4
7,205
WHIRPOOL
67043
Ref – NewSupreme – 180Ltrs
32,912
67046
Ref – NewRoyale – 180Ltrs
8,715
67014
Ref – FusionPreimer – 200Ltrs
9,538
MARUTI – CAR
64225 MARUTI 800 STD Rs.1,59,524
64227 MARUTI 800 A/C – N/Met Rs.1,78,528
64229 OMNI 5Seater – F/R N/Met Rs.1,94,391
64226 OMNI 8Seater -m F/R N/Met Rs.1,95,843
HUNDAI – CAR
64089 SANTRO SOLID – Non A/C Rs.2,24,492
64088 SANTRO – Met Non A/C Rs.2,27,552
64087 SANTRO GL SOLID Rs.2,81,527
64094 SANTRO GL MET Rs.2,84,587
SAMSUNG – Air Conditioner – CSD
67132 Window A/C – AWT12 – 1 Ton – Remote 12,019
67137 Window A/C – AWT18 – FIMD 1 Ton – Remote 14,140
67138 Window A/C – AW24 – Q 1 Ton – W/R 17,574
67253 Split A/C – AST18 – 1.5 Ton 19,629
67254 Split A/C – AST24 – 2 Ton 23,432
LG – Air Conditioner – CSD PRICE LIST
Index No. Item – Code No. Amount
67142 LWA A/C 24- G2 RDE – 1.2 Ton – Remote 18,389
67137 LWA A/C 18 – G2 RDE – 1.5 Ton – Remote 14,645
67155 LSA A/C 5TW- 2ASI SPLIT – 1.5 Ton 20,361
Dear BP,
ReplyDeleteDon't tel me yr blog will turn out to be like this in future.........a grocery shop.
A SLAP ON THE FACE
ReplyDeleteApr 6, 2010
Treat Military Nurses at par with regular Commissioned Officers-ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL
In a major victory for women in the armed forces, the Armed Forces Tribunal has directed the Government to treat military nurses at par with regular commissioned officers of the three Services in terms of rank and entitlements.
The order by the Tribunal, which enjoys judicial powers, was pronounced on a petition by former Military Nursing Service (MNS) officer Major General Usha Sikder who had sought restoration of status of Nursing Officers at par with all other officers.
"Respondents (central government) are directed to treat all the officers of Military Nursing Service as a part of the regular force of the Indian Armed Forces and extend all entitlements which are commensurate with the rank as equal to commissioned officers of Indian Army to her," the two-member Bench headed by Tribunal Chairman Justice A K Mathur said.
Well done MNS,
ReplyDeleteThese Army brass need this slap.They think only they can only wear this.
Its a bit much to call it a "Slap". It is the correction of an injustice, which was overdue. The armed forces are the only services which offer gazetted rank to nursing officer in the government. Other services like the CPO's and Civil govt give them Group B status, despite their educational qualifications. It is time that all government services started to give them gazetted rank, and privileges.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I will take this opportunity to express my anguish at the destruction of life of CPO personnel in the Naxal attack in Dantewada. May the souls of the departed rest in peace, and may god give succour to the bereaved.
Anony above,
ReplyDeleteWell you may call it by any name slap or kick or correction but the sound it had created is audiable to one and all.
The fact remain that Army thinks they can only wear shoulder Ranks and nobody else.
Inspite of all hulla and gulla made for ltcol equivalent till date that rank is equivalent to Second-in-Command only.
That is the truth
@poster "BSF" above:
ReplyDeleteLets not make nonsensical comments. A Lt. Col was never equivalent to the so called "rank" of "Second in Command", so lets not fight over it. Even today, Commissioned Officers in PB4 (Lieutenant Colonels), are in no way comparable to CPO personnel, in PB3 (these 2-i-c's)! I dont want to disrespect the service of anyone, and nor should anyone disrespect the service of the armed forces.
Are you even actually in the BSF, or just some malcontent from somewhere?
Please see this book on service law, which clearly specifies that the shoulder emblems of a BSF commandant are Ashok Symbol, with one star.
ReplyDeleteThe shoulder emblem of DIG should be Ashok Symbol with two stars.
So that we all know what is what, a commandant was, and remains, equivalent to a Lt. Col.
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=MHpxYVcVVUUC&pg=PT110&lpg=PT110&dq=%22Assam+Rifles+Cadre%22&source=bl&ots=CHHdW7HAY0&sig=3S0JUxwHts95v9LG4TJXLUaX5E4&hl=en&ei=L5a9S8qDD5K1rAel2qG6Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Assam%20Rifles%20Cadre%22&f=false
ReplyDeleteAnony@3:06 PM
ReplyDeleteWell years back even co of Army batalion was only wearing Ashok Symbol, with one star.However,selection grade Commandant was never with Ashok Symbol, with one star.
Buy cheapest Semi automatic Washing machine from
ReplyDeleteSargam Electronics