Legal Reference Library

High Court of Delhi B.B. Dash v. Central Information Commission and Anr. Right to Information CPIO is to give sufficient reasons for denying supply of information on account of it being exempt Petitioner impugns order dated 22th November, 2016, whereby, CIC has held Petitioner – CPIO liable for not providing information to Respondents. It has been held that, Petitioner has failed to provide information without any cogent reasons. Maximum penalty, as prescribed, of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on Petitioner. In facts of present case, Respondent No.2 had filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 25th August, 2015 seeking certain information. Reply to said information was given. Since Respondent No.2 was not satisfied with reply given, a complaint under Section 18 of Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed with CIC. Said complaint under Section 18 of Act culminated in proceedings under Section 20 of Act leading to impugned order dated 22nd November, 2016. ...

The Bombay High Court last week ruled that expenses incurred by a professional going abroad for treatment of eye is not eligible for income tax deduction. The assessee in this case, Dhimant Thakar vs CIT, was a lawyer and he argued that good vision was important for pursuing his profession. His claim for the assessment year 1986-87 was rejected by the revenue authorities. His appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who observed that if the logic of the lawyer was stretched, it would mean that even expenditure incurred on food to preserve oneself should be treated as allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as being incurred for business or profession. On appeal, the high court upheld the view of the authorities observing that "eyes are essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the professional is not in th...