U/s 45Q of the RBI Act read with the NBFCs Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions 1998, it was mandatory on the part of the assessee not to recognize the interest on the ICD as it had become a NPA. The assessee was bound to compute income having regard to the recognized accounting principles set out in Accounting Standard AS-9. AS-9 provides that if there are uncertainties as to recognition of revenue, the revenue should not be recognized. Accordingly, the argument of the revenue that the interest on the NPA can be said to have accrued despite it being a NPA is not acceptable. Southern Technologies vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) distinguished. Elgi Finance 293 ITR 357 (Mad) followed

Revenue Secretary & CBDT Chairman summoned by Delhi High Court to redress inefficiencies in functioning of the income-tax department

The AO cannot reopen the assessment u/s 147 merely on the basis of information received without applying his mind to the information and forming an opinion. The reasons must show due application of mind to the information. He also cannot reopen merely because he has been directed to do so by a superior officer

ITAT President requested to make it compulsory for assessees to amend Form 36 for change of address instead of intimating vide letter

Q whether notional interest on interest-free security deposit is includible in ‘house property’ income referred to Full Bench

The words “and also” in s. 147 indicate that reassessment must be with respect to the income for which the AO has formed an opinion and also in respect of any other income which comes to his notice subsequently. However, if the AO accepts the objection of the assessee and does not assess the income which was the basis of the notice, it is not open to him to assessee income under some other issue independently

Non-residents are not liable to pay interest u/s 234B. S. 234D applies from AY 2004-05 and is not retrospective

In answer to the question raised by the department as whether interest u/s 234D can be charged in respect of refunds granted prior to 1.6.2003 it was held that as s. 234D came on the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2003, it did not have retrospective effect

Though the judgement in Mittal Court Premises Co-op Society vs. ITO is reported in 320 ITR 414, the said last paragraph has been omitted to be printed therein

S. 133A does not mandate that any statement recorded under that section would have evidentiary value. It merely enables the authority to record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act. For a statement to have evidentiary value, the survey officer should have been authorised to administer oath and to record sworn statement as under s.132 (4). While s. 132(4) specifically authorizes an officer to examine a person on oath, s. 133A does not permit the same