You have not mentioned the fact that SEBI has instructed these companies to get themselves rated from one of the reputed rating agencies. Till such time, they are debarred from mobilising funds. But there is no restriction from any quarters on paying dividend to honour their earlier commitments.I am also feeling quite helpless when, in spite of my repeated warnings to my readers to stay away from such companies through these columns, I receive such letters. I havealways expressed my antagonism against all schemes which promise the moon, particularly the plantation, teak wood, goat farms and time-sharing schemes.

All such companies are neither under surveillance of any regulatory authorities as yet nor do they submit themselves, for obvious reasons, for credit rating. They tempt the lay investors by indulging in offering dizzy rate of returns supported by high-blitz ad campaigns. Many investors get carried away and become the victims of such companies whose primary objective is to fleece persons like you and fly by night.

When such situations come to light, all that the authorities do is to catch hold of some scapegoats and hold them responsible for the mishap. The CRB scam is a typical example. The main culprits are rarely comprehended. Even if they are comprehended and punished (I have not come across even one such situation. Have you? I would like to learn from you. The investor is normally left high and dry.

The most amusing thing is that the authorities asksuch companies to get registered with them. Needless to state that the fee is steep. Those who register face the music in terms of being required to file statements of their affairs at regular intervals and the data required is so extensive that the cost of conformation itself will take the registered company to bankruptcy. Those who do not register bask in the sun because they are outside the purview of the regulatory authorities. Great!

In one of your articles you have stated that senior citizen regarding requirement of filing form 15H in case the tax liability in his case is nil after availing rebate u/s 88 and sec 88B. In this connection, you have referred to para 3 of form 15H and has also drawn attention to the definition of 'Total Income' and `Gross Total Income' u/s 5 and sec 80B(5) respectively of the ITA, 1961.

In this connection I would like to bring to your attention that Para 3 read as follows: "that the tax on my/our estimated total income including the interest on other than `interest onsecurities' and/or income in respect of units referred to in paragraph-1 computed in accordance with the provisions of... will be nil".

It follows therefore whether the words `computed in accordance with the provisions of the ITA' will follow `Tax' or `estimated total income'. If these words follow `Tax' computed then tax should be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, including rebates and reliefs allowed under the Act. Since para 3 contemplates `Tax' to be nil, naturally the words `computed in accordance with the provisions of the ITA' should follow `Tax' and it should be computed after taking into account all reliefs and rebates, in which case filing form 15H will not amount to false declaration.
-- T V Tyagarajan, Chennai

I am afraid that the authors of the legislation themselves get confused with the very terminology they themselves have defined and cause confusion all around. My only complaint is that different experts build different opinions. I am not an expert but I abideby what I have stated. I am not much worried about experts differing. The main cause of concern emanates from different ITOs holding different views and CBDT chooses to sit on fence and watch the fun.

All my family have PPF accounts out of which three accounts have matured in April 98. Two of these accounts were in State Bank of India, Thane branch, while the one in my wife's name was held in State Bank of Hyderabad, Mulund(E).

We had applied for complete withdrawal of outstanding amount in May 98. SBI, Thane returned the maturity amount as on 31.3.98 along with 12 per cent interest for full month of April 98. However, SBH Mulund returned just the maturity amount as on 31.3.98.

We have filed a written complaint with SBH regarding non payment of interest for April 98 on outstanding balance along with photostats of SBI PPF passbooks. I want to know whether I am correct in demanding interest and if so, kindly guide me regarding further course of action.
-- Hiten Shah, Thane

Long ago, one of myfriends faced a similar situation but it was within the same bank. The husband and wife had contributed the same amount on the same date and yet, the interest credited differed. When the error was pointed out to the bank, it was found that the wife of my friend was credited with much higher interest than what was due to her. Now, comes the most amusing part.

The bank officer requested my friend to ignore the mistake and enjoy the benefit of the extra credit. It appears that there is no check on the amount of interest credited to PPF accounts and wonder how many unscrupulous bank officers are taking undue advantage of this loophole.

You are well justified in claiming interest for the month of April since you have applied for closure in the month of May. Had you filed the application in April and the account was closed in May, then there is some confusion.Some of the account offices take the date of application as the date of closure whereas others avoid penalising the account holder for the delay inprocessing the closure of the account. However, if one goes strictly by the PPF rules, the depositor does suffer on account of the processing delay. The rule states, ``.. together with interest up to the last day of the month preceding the month in which the application for withdrawal is made..''. I only hope the authorities install a cross check on the interest paid in all the cases where the accounts are not computerised.