The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on two points with respect to JCIT and desired details regarding Income Tax Budget Target fixed by JCIT Range- 3, Bokaro for the Financial Year 2015-2016 and Tax Collected during the Financial Year 2015-16.
Competition Commission of India (CCI) has found Coal India Limited (CIL) and its subsidiaries to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002 for imposing unfair/ discriminatory conditions in Fuel Supply Agreements (FSAs) with the power producers for supply of non-coking coal.
Commission observed that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
Appellant Mandeep Singh filed RTI’s to the head offices of the Banks for seeking information, whether head office issued any directions that Project Reports, Projected Balance Sheets and CMA data should be certified by Chartered Accountants.
CBDT has provided Tax Audit Data to ICAI based on the returns e-filed during the financial year 2010-11. This has been published in one of the leading Private Website for CAs on 16th day of November 2011.
By his RTI application dated 16.5.2011, complainant S.C. Aggarwal has sought the following information from the Presidents/Secretaries of the Indian National Congress (INC/AICC) and the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)
After perusing the submissions made during the hearing and considering the submissions made during the hearing, it appears that the following exemptions have been claimed by the Department and the Third parties- Section 8(1)(b), (d), (e), (h), and (j). Section 3 of the RTI Act very succinctly states `Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information. ‘ Thus according to the RTI Act, if the information as defined under Section 2(f) is not exempt from di
The Applicant, an informer of the department, filed a RTI application seeking inspection & copies of all records available with the income tax department including assessment orders of Escorts Ltd, Dr. Naresh Trehan and connected parties. The application was rejected by the PIO on the ground that there was no overriding public interest in disclosing the information relating to third parties and the disclosure would lead to an invasion of privacy of the assessees. On appeal by the applicant, HELD allowing the appeal:
