PERSONAL xcellence !

UPDATES >>>

 

  MORAL >

Left entirely to Providence, may be, - there is a very remote chance for anyone to even aim at /strive for that not -so- easy-to--accomplish ideal of, - 'self-motivation'; let alone the ultimate ideological aim of  'personal excellence'.

No doubt, as willed by the CREATOR, THE omnipotent, 'vision', of we , the mortals, is not to be taken to  be ever /always intended to be a faculty with 'perfectness' or 'absoluteness' about it. That is not to say that, if not trying and widening it, nonetheless there is every scope to keep striving for and check any further deterioration /impairment. Is it not a fact of life science that, the so called 'short sight' or long sight' is , -with the given modern technology and its more and more new innovations of well known kind, - certainly, if not absolutely curable, rectifiable to improve ? ???>>>>>>     

  <<<

 

 

I Felt like a Wallflower at Lawyer Networking Events Until I Started Doing This

 

a random sample >

 

"devils dictionary of global services"

 

The Devil's Dictionary: G - Alcyone Systems

www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/g.html

Heed not the definitions your "Unabridged" presents, For dictionary makers ... tell you offhand the difference between the outside of the world and the inside. .... The song I cannot offer: My humbler service pray accept -- I'll help to kill the scoffer.

Google search for more

 

Cross Refer (on my chosen platform for interaction): 

Typical 'Long Sight' - not simply excusable/ remediable -

Submitted by vswami on 21 July 2015 

>>>>>>

 

Personal Excellence

5 Tips to Deal with Negative Criticism [Video]
Celes, 2015-07-25 19:15

Such negative criticism  is not peculiar to and faced with only by a blogger; but applies on all fours, also to/by a visitor, who, with utmost sincerity of purpose, desires to participate in the subject discussion,- and based on his own courage of conviction, ventures to share and puts across his independent viewpoints, for the benefit of the blogger and the other participants in the discussion as well. More so, after making the purpose in mind either explicit, or even if not, indicating that it is expected to be as a well -meaning and – intended, feedback; thereby, to provoke more thoughts, and if convinced, to try and toe the lines of reasoning, on the same wavelength, but nonetheless decide for self which path or route to take, to succeed in accomplishing the common goal / reaching the aspired destination. Such feedback, if taken in the right spirit in its true sense, may be found handy and prove useful to anyone who, while at cross roads, is so clueless as to decide on own, as to what is the-, if not the only right,- better direction route to prudently take, and determinedly move, keep moving, forward; not to get stuck / stay put.

For a better appreciation of the underlying message, one can, at the cost of tiresome repetition though, merely reproduce the following, as likewise bluntly shared often before:   

Q

IN QUEST OF A SOURCE FOR RIGHTEOUS INSPIRATION AND DIRECTION

(A)   Last but not least, it might be worthwhile, for one and all concerned, to take a conscious note of and try and be guided by what a renowned legal legend, also a widely acknowledged outstanding humanitarian, of our own times, backed up by his lifelong wisdom and expertise, said:

•  The moment of truth has arrived.  The era of chicanery and disingenuousness, of obfuscation and slogan-mongering, is over.  Reality has at last overtaken us, shattering our illusions, exposing our outdated ideologies and leaving us with no option but to tread the path of pragmatism, in retreat from populism.
•  Time and again the Government has to make those hard decisions which are essential for the maintenance of order.  The making of such decisions cannot be avoided by shifting the responsibility to the judiciary.

 (B) It might not be out of context, but may fit like a glove (or fit- in like ‘T’!), to recall some quotes, rich in wisdom by any standard, any day; more so, in our (ultra) modern times:

  > It is pre-eminently a time for deep, national introspection. We must be self-critical to meet the truth face to face. The bar is more commercialised than before. Today the law is looked upon, not as learned profession but as a lucrative one. The due process of law has become less due than tortuous and unending.

> Wooden – headedness assesses a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contra indications. In short it is the obstinate refusal to learn from experience.

       <> To unravel the hidden message of this cryptic quote:

What makes our mind hard and closed? Sages have said that this is an automatic front-line defence mechanism for the protection of our belief systems based on our state of ego. If we encounter an idea or a situation that is not in line with our thinking, we immediately close our mind, we put up a block against it; this is what we call mindset. Ego creates mindset. Mindset is a protective mechanism of self defence because we are scared of what others think about our notions and beliefs. Mindset is self-destructive and we have quite often experienced this. …”

(Source: Article published in TOI – Discourse:Shri Shri Nimishananda)

In a manner of speaking, the quote is seemingly out of context, especially  in today’s changed scenario; for, we, after all, are ordinary mortals, not ‘Sages’ – in its profound sense.

The Puzzle of Personal Excellence

by  Dianna  Boober

Excerpts:

¨ Be receptive to feedback

¨ Some advice you don’t ask for. That is what I call feedback-unsolicited opinions about you or your work those comments are sometimes more valuable than what you do ask for we tend to ask for guidance – and we want it to be positive. Feedback is usually unsolicited and often unfavorable but bit can be most valuable even if embarrassing.

¨ Granted you can get too much negative or contradictory feedback and become discouraged but feedback, properly evaluated, from a contributor can be invaluable in gaining perspective on where you’re going.

¨We need to measure ourselves with someone else’s  yardstick occasionally  if you’re getting the same feedback from several sources -either positive or negative –pay attention.

(Source:  Book titled PERSONAL EXCELLENCE )

> In public affairs, stupidity is more dangerous than knavery.

<>The expression “public affairs” most certainly, would take within its ambit all matters entailing “public interest” or “common good” in a profound sense

> As Lord Buckmaster observed, it would be more true to say of the finest lawyers that, so far from having a narrow outlook on the world, there is no horizon too large for them to gaze at. There is no learning that comes amiss to the lawyer; there is no phase of all the myriad mysteries of the human heart which may not be the subject of the case which he has to consider.

<> It is to be believed, even difficult that be, -these are quotes from the published articles and speeches of the renowned greatest legal luminary, a doyen of the Bar himself, – N A Palkhivala. He was one of those very few popularly known not just for his sharp wisdom but for his exemplary boldness to be self-critical to meet the truth face to face. Shared, though on a selective but random basis, in the fond hope on hopes of being rightly perceived, and attempted to be imbibed with a righteous perspective.

UQ

Key Note:

Anyone, if were really willing to give more useful thoughts, look up, -

http://taxguru.in/income-tax/section-194-ia-writeup.html

And do so, objectively, without least bothering to be subjective and judgmental, or being bogged down or concerned about, as to what is to be taken as relevant or otherwise OR as being  too 'technical' or  'legalistic' to be not taken much seriously but slighted or pooh-pooed !

OPEN , and welcome, TO 'EDIT' 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Aside (not irrelevant (or 'legalistic); me think so! Don't YOU ?)

OFFHAND  >

Your abrupt and cryptic response, in an attempt to justify your own action - founded on your own , in my perception, immature reasoning, -reminds me of what i wrote in my own style, in one of my articles, as a professional, published in Taxman journal years ago. i was then reacting to the instance when the itat , perhaps motivated by the same belief you seem to entertain, abridged drastically the question of law sought to be , and referred it to the HC, thereby rendering it too vague to be understood by the court, so as to elicit a well considered judicial opinion . Had it done differently, as viewed by me, the court would possibly have been obliged to hand down just a contrary opinion and in proper light.

Going by memory for the nonce, my reaction was, - no doubt to be brief may be generally advisable; but not in all situations. Anyway, that is not to be rightly taken as a ‘virtue’ to always prudently stick to; as to be brief , so brief as a woman’s bathing suit , may not be helpful but might do harm in  a given situation.

In a lighter vein, but to underline my line of reasoning, find below a comment, not verbatim, posted on your Tamil edition once:

< இது ஒரு ‘பஞ்ச்’ டயலாக், ரஜனி சார் ஸ்டைல் >

“நான் ஒரு தபா சொன்னா நூறு தபா சொன்னா மாதிரி” !

அப்படியா தலைவரே ; ஒரே ஒரு சம்சயம் !

என்னாது இன்றேன் !

ஒன்னுமிலே;  நம்ம மக்கள்லே  ரொம்ப பேரு நூறு தபா சொன்னாலும்  ஒரு தபா கூட  விளங்க மாட்டேங்குதே . அதுக்கு என்ன சொல்றீகே ?!

For knowing the very honest purpose behind my persistent interaction with you people,against all odds -through comments on your columns / articles,- let me make a clean breast of it to you shortly, but after i have  had time to relieve myself of the monotony the instant experience has obliged me to face.

Turning to your honourable Ombudsman, let him try and see whether he could have desirably  applied his own mind to the given situation and conveyed to me what he personally feels on my point of objection, also done what i earnestly expected from him;  instead of simply forwarding my rejoinder to the same person against whom i had a grievance.

Wish/suggest both of you to read what others have said and you have accepted and displayed wrt the same write-up- and, to review what brevity you found therein to meet your personal liking.

Last but not least, you ought not forget, you are not my tutor or mentor; and you are not paid by your master to keep dictating / teaching to the Readers to write the way you think they should write. For, at the end of the day, a comment such as mine IS A COMMENT, for sharing own thoughts WITH THE OTHER READERS, and in own independent way; nothing more. And, offered gratuitously , FOR NO SOLATIUM .

NOTE: No attempt made to edit foregoing, as this is not a thesis or a professional article.

Enough IS Enough for me; and for the DAY.

Hope my reaction is taken in the right spirit as expected.   

Again me >

To finish:

Find attached the selected portion from the Taxman Article.

As implied in the cited 'adage' (-brevity is the soul of WIT) itself, 'brevity' can be sanely, safely and prudently resorted to, provided the one or more for whom i.e the readers,the message (comment) is intended, is endowed with a normally expected 'IQ' and /or 'EQ' level. In the nature of things,therefore, as common sense/knowledge dictates, that cannot be taken for granted ever/always; hence the need felt to dilate.

Now,hoping to have said all at least for the present,fervently look forward a desirable change for better, in the faulted function of 'moderation', in place,at your end.

   Find attached >

Q

[2006] 156 Taxman 121 (ART)

ANIL M. GEHI’S CASE

2. One of the recently reported judgments on the subject issue is of the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Anil M. Gehi [2005] 148 Taxman 645/[2006] 284 ITR 338, and it is the main subject of discussion herein.

A gist of the case is furnished below :

The Customs seized foreign currency from the assessee while he was proceeding abroad. On being caught and questioned, the assessee denied that he was the owner of the foreign currency seized and also that he was engaged in the business of smuggling. However, his denials, not having been substantiated were rejected; he was treated as a smuggler and detained under COFEPOSA, and the foreign currency was confiscated.

On the above stated facts and circumstances, the revenue brought to tax the rupee equivalent of the sum of foreign currency seized from the assessee as unexplained income by specifically invoking section 69A of the Act. The assessee’s claim for deduction of a like sum as loss of the foreign currency for reason of it having been confiscated by the Customs was rejected by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’), and also in first appeal. On second appeal, the Tribunal decided the matter in the assessee’s favour by holding that he was entitled to the deduction by treating the confiscated foreign currency as loss of stock-in-trade incidental to his business of smuggling.

The point of dispute was taken up in reference to the High Court by the revenue. The question as framed by the revenue reads :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the foreign currency of Rs. 4,56,980   confiscated by the customs authorities from the assessee should be allowed as a loss to the assessee while assessing the same as unexplained income of the assessee under section 69A, in view of the fact that the source of such foreign currency has not been explained, as a result of which the income is assessable under the head ‘Other sources’ and not under the head ‘Business or profession’ and further, the loss of the amount due to the confiscation being in the nature of personal loss is not eligible for set off?" (p. 648)

However, the Tribunal re-framed the question and referred it to the High Court as under :

"Whether, the foreign currency of Rs. 4,56,980 confiscated from the assessee was allowable as a loss to the assessee." (p. 648)

The referred question, as may be observed, was, in comparison with the comprehensive question as proposed by the revenue, so brief that it had omitted to bring to focus all such relevant points as required for the Court to give a well-considered and proper opinion. The Tribunal had obviously failed to appreciate that despite the old proverb - Brevity is the soul of wit, in matters of law, especially in court proceedings, brevity at the cost of clarity may result in an unintended or undesirable consequence. That it actually turned out to be so is borne out by the fact that, in the Court’s judgment, in answering the referred question, the relevant section 69A was not considered.

UQ

 <<<<<<<<<<<

On Friday, 28 November 2014 6:50 PM, Vuukle <f655400@vuukle.mailgun.org> wrote:

	V.Suresh just replied to your comment! V.Suresh wrote: "Your post reminds me of the adage: "Brevity is the Soul of Wit".".