#ChangeTheNumbers - Entdecken Sie die Ergebnisse der Studie

Buy a new Clayton home and receive gift cards from Lowe�s* to build your dream backyard.

If we talk about the frequency, the TDS return may be revised multiple times, which allows taxpayers to make corrections as and when needed. However, it is advisable to avoid excessive revisions to prevent complexities in record-keeping.

My client purchased a property from an NRI and we have deducted 20% Plus Cess and Surcharge. Later the TDS processed with defaults and intimated that the applicable rate is 30%. They have raised demand for short deduction.1.What is the actual rate of TDS when we are buying

Dear Friends,While generating the Justification report by using the latest utility version available in the TDS CPC portal ( Utility version 3.1) i'm getting the following error :"JR-Err971:Subscriptt out of range. Please report to TDSCPC with this descripttion."After t

We filed Form 27Q for TDS on a foreign company who doesn't have a PAN in India. Hence we wrote PANNOTAVBL. Deduction was made as per rate in DTAA. Hence higher rate was not required. Now we have received a notice saying that there is an error in the return as PAN number is not mentioned for 1 ded

What steps should be taken if bank deducted TDS at a higher rate and a PAN was obtained afterward?

Hi
I want to cancel my TAN number which is no more use
please share the process is it online or offline process?

I had bought a Pre-const house for 55lac and paid Stamp duty on 55lac during registration.
I made 54,00,00 payments in installments and now making the last installment of 1 lac

On the 26QB form

Total Value of Consideration (Property Value) -₹55,00,000
Payment type*-Installment
Whether it is last installment ?*-Yes
Whether stamp duty value is higher than sale consideration ?* - Dont know what to choose
Total amount paid/ credited in previous installments, if any (A) * ₹54,00,000
Amount paid/credited currently (B) *-₹1,00,000
Total stamp duty value of the property (C) *₹55,00,000

Now under
Tax Deposit Details, I am getting
Amount on which TDS to be deducted (D)*₹55,00,000, which looks wrong.

Should this not be the amount currently paid ₹1,00,000. What am I doing wrong?

Note*I was suggested in the forum to enter ₹1,00,000 in box (C), but it still calculates the total amount of ₹55,00,000 in (D)

Hi,
This question is w.r.t Final payment of TDS for property sale.
This is for 2 buyer and 1 seller.
Below is about 80% share of 1 seller.

Total Value of Consideration (Property Value) - 81,04,500 INR

Total amount paid/ credited in previous installments, if any (A) - 61,59,420 INR
Amount paid/credited currently (B) - 3,24,180 INR
Total stamp duty value of the property (C) - 64,83,600

Amount on which TDS to be deducted (D) is directly getting calculated at - 64,83,600 INR.

Ideally, since it is last installment, amount on which TDS to be deducted needs to be visible as 3,24,180 INR. However, it is showing 64,83,600.

Kindly help and update what needs to be filled in A, B & C so that I pay TDS of 1% on 3,24,180 INR only.

Highlights: The Air Quality Index (AQI) helps to determine the safety of outdoor exercise Learn AQI-based

Rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are found to be alarming in the U.S. as per the i Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Report /i

Hard to Treat Diseases (HTDS) Melem Secret Launches New Line of Nutriceuticals

CSN: EBITDA Margin Reaches 41% and Gross Profit Stands at R (Dollor) 1.4 Billion in 1Q10

Children who play outdoors during their preschool years are less likely to become obese later in childhood. h2Outdoor Play Habits in Japanese Children/h2 The

Global Asset Solutions has marshalled EBITDA growth of 34.63% YoY to August 2024, across its expanding portfolio of luxury hotels.

The victory of former US President Donald Trump, and his return to the US President office following the US Presidential Elections of 2024, has ruffled many feathers in Hollywood.

With all eyes on how a new Trump administration in the U.S. will interface with China Tech in the years ahead, its neighbor to the north has leveled a blow to one of the biggest apps to come out of the country. Canada has ordered the closure of ByteDance’s operations in Canada — specifically the […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

“For You” algorithms that promote the most interesting content across a social network, personalized to the individual user, offered a disjointed, outdated, and nearly unusable experience on election night in the U.S. as they highlighted hours-old posts that no longer reflected the current state of the race. Frustrations were particularly high on Threads, Meta’s X […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

1. The present Petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A&C Act') have been filed by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties from work order dated 03.09.2014.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are that:-

a. It is stated that the work order bearing No.JMD/SUBURIO- 67/FW/JKR/LOI/01, dated 03.09.2014 was issued by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner herein for design, manufacture, supply, installation, testing, commissioning and handing over of Fire-Fighting system at JMD SUBURIO, Sector- 67, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, for total consideration of Rs.1,69,51,000/-.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („A&C Act') challenging the Order dated 13.05.2023, by which an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the Claimant (Petitioner-herein) seeking impleadment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as Respondent No.4 in the arbitration proceedings has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as under:-

CM(M) 84/2024

1. The Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, to challenge the Order dated 06.12.2023 of the learned Tribunal, dismissing the Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟ hereinafter), of the M/s Shiv Probuild Pvt. Ltd./Registered Owner of the offending vehicle, to implead M/S. Kundu Nirman as a party.

2. The offending vehicle i.e. APOLLO make HIDROSTATIC PAVER FINISHER MODE of which the petitioner is the registered owner bearing No. 6H 3301/1200001, was handed over to the Respondent, M/s Kundu Nirman, pursuant to a Work Order dated 01.06.2022, on the specified terms and conditions. The Respondent being the contractor of Pubic Works Department („PWD‟ hereinafter), was carrying out the assigned work of strengthening and construction of the road, when the accident occurred involving this vehicle on 25.06.2022 at about 12:30 a.m., resulting in death of Mr. Rajesh. FIR No. 172/2022 under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟ hereinafter) read with Sections 3/181, 146/196, 39/192, 134/187, 66/192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 („M.V. Act‟ hereinafter) was registered at Police Station, Roop Nagar, Delhi.

1.     This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') challenges the order dated 16.02.2018 in complaint no. CC/26 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties no.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.50 lakh to the complainant as compensation for medical negligence for the death of his son with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint (23.04.2012) till the date of payment within 2 months of the order.

2.     I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully.

3.       The Complainant approached the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the following prayers:

"a) To compensate  the complainant for the actual loss suffered (amounting to Rs.1,03,83,335/-) and release the remaining claim amount for the loss due to fire amounting to Rs.60 Lakhs (Approximately) along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 22.05.2017 till its actual payment to the complainant.

b) To compensate and make payment of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice, harassment, mental agony caused to the complainant by the misleading and negligent acts of respondent/Insurance Company and not paying the insurance claim at reinstatement value basis as specified in the insurance policy.

18.2 The above facts revealed that the TAL had neither submitted the correct ST-3 returns showing the above taxable amount nor deposited the Service Tax on the taxable amount representing the amount received from the SKOL as License endorsement fees. It appears that TAL had deliberately suppressed their receipts against License endorsement fees and have also sought to mislead the investigation by claiming that the said receipts are not related to renting of the immoveable property while both TAL the service provider and SKOL the recipient of service have accounted for the amount paid as license endorsement fees as Rent in their Balance sheets. It therefore appears from the foregoing that the noticee has resorted to fraud, willful mis-statement, and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. M/s TAL have thus suppressed the taxable value to ST/52898/2018 the tune of Rs. 18,93,66,667/- from the Service Tax department and evaded the Service Tax amounting to Rs 2,02,15,467/-(Service Tax Rs 1,96,26,667 + Ed Cess 3,92,533/- + Ed Cess Rs 1,96,267/-) in respect of taxable services rendered by them for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.01.2013 by contravening the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder. Thus, the service tax not paid by TAL on the value of taxable services suppressed by them is recoverable from them by invoking the extended period under proviso to Sub- section(1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act 1994 along with interest at the appropriate rate as per Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994."

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA  

1.      This First Appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act') challenges order dated 16.12.2020 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressals Commission, Delhi (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint No. 188 of 2020 holding that the appellants herein are not "consumers" under the purview of the Act and dismissing the complaint filed by them.

2.      The delay of 80 days in the filing of this complaint has been considered in the light of the fact that the impugned order was dated 16. 12.2020 and while the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days of receipt of order, this period coincided with the COVID-19 Pandemic and in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 the period for limitation stood extended.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal1 is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 19 February 2013 in terms of which an Award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal2 has come to be upheld. In terms of the Award dated 05 October 2005, the petitioner- appellant was directed to frame a policy of regularisation in respect of the respondent workmen. Both the Tribunal as well as the learned LPA Tribunal Single Judge have essentially held against the appellant on the ground that the engagement of the respondent-workmen through a contractor was merely a ruse to overcome the obligations which would have stood attached in case it were to be recognized to be the principal employer.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612.

2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg

The Court: As a last chance, the time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extended upto 30th November, 2024. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within 8th December, 2024. Let this matter appear in the list on 11th December, 2024.

The time mentioned is peremptory.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) B.Pal

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

The Court:- This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated November 08, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.666/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error by not considering the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital / share premium of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, without considering the fact that there is accommodation entry in the instant case?

learned advocate on record of the appellant is directed to serve notice of appeal on the respondent in the meantime.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S. Kumar

The Court : This is an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging an order dated January 11, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.763/Kol/2022, for the assessment order 2013-14.

We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

The appeal was filed beyond time and an application for condonation of delay was filed which was heard and the delay was condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the assessee has been advised to avail the provisions of the direct tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (VSVS) dated 15 th October, 2023. However, one issue may crop up if the assessee files an application under VSVS by citing that the duty fixed for eligible cases as has been mentioned in paragraph 3(Sl.1)(ii). Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Asish Kumar Ghosh, WPA 18282 of 2021 and by judgment dated 1st April, 2022 this Court had considered the very same issue and found that the assessee would be eligible to file a declaration under the provisions of the VSVS and a direction was also issued to process such application. The judgment rendered in Asish Kumar Ghosh will fully support the case of the assessee and therefore the assessee is entitled to file an application under the VSVS. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to file an application and the department shall process the application in accordance with law.

Date: November 8, 2024.

Appearance :

Ms. Swapna Choubey, Adv.

Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv.

... for the plaintiff Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv.

The Court:- Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate prays for hearing of this application under section11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground that the arbitrability of a dispute should not be decided by this Bench. This issue should also be decided by the learned arbitrator. Mr. Mitra further contends that once there is an arbitration clause and arbitration has been invoked under section 21 of the said Act, all that this court is supposed to do is to appoint an independent person to act as an arbitrator.

2

Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the respondent opposes such prayer and submits that the order passed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in favour of Mr. Mitra's client, has been challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Mr. Sinha has produced an order dated 15th April, 2024 passed in the appeal preferred by the respondent. The question of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the dispute has been raised. The Hon'ble Division Bench had observed that it would be up to the learned single judge whether to decide the question or to adjourn the proceedings, in order to enable the Division Bench to proceed. Mr. Sinha submits that the erstwhile Single Bench had adjourned this matter, on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble appeal Court.

The Court:- This appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated January 16, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1964/Kol/2019 and C.O. No.39/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the invocation of sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of appellant, the appellant's claim that expenditure of Rs.9,77,888/ was incurred in relation to the exempt income was not correct?

The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 9th May, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/491/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

a. Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in granting relief to the assessee without considering the fact that neither the assessee nor the amalgamating company informed the AO about the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore defect in not issuing notice in the name of amalgamated company remained a curable defect under section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

1. This is an criminal appeal under section 341 Cr.PC preferred by the appellant/ applicant against the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate SED/Saket Court, New Delhi whereby the application of appellant/applicant moved u/s 340 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

2. The grounds cited by the appellant against the impugned order are as under :

A. Because the Ld. Trial Court duly appreciated the fact that the Respondent Bank concealed the fact regarding the Appellant being in possession of the said property, and yet, in utter disregard of the prejudice caused to the Appellant due to such concealment, regarded the same as being non violative of the principles of natural justice.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised PPA No.07/2020 M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Estate Officer in Case no. 23 of 2015 passed under Section 5(1) of the Act holding the appellant to be in unauthorised occupation of the subject premises w.e.f. 01.03.2015, as well as another order dated 17.01.2010 passed by the Estate Officer in Case no. 23 (A) of 2015 passed under Section 7(2) and 7(2A) of the Act holding the appellant liable to pay dues of Rs.6,81,08,996/- as on 31.12.2019.

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking the following information:

"1. The name of revenue villages with survey nos of tower line erected for PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd 800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dr?

2. The copy of item wise list of cut and removed trees, category, age, analysis and evaluation certificate from Agriculture Department for erecting PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd 800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dr?

3. The copy of details of the following a. Land compensation paid.

b. Compensation paid for crops (item wise) c. Compensation paid for trees (item wise) For erecting PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd-800KVA HVDC Transmission Line Raigargh (Chattisgargh) to Pugalur (TN) in Erode Dt?

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated NIL seeking the following information:

"1 यह कि दिन ांि 11/09/2022, 22/09/2022 व 28/10/2022 िो दिए गए प्र र्थन पत्र पर आज ति उसि जव ब क्यों नह ां दिय गय अगर ि यथव ह हुई है तो क्य ि यथव ह हुई है उसिी सत्य पपत सांदहत ररपोर्थ िे ने िी िृप िरें ।

2 यह कि जजसिे खिल फ शिि यत िी गई उसिी ज ांच िी ि यथव ह DM, ADM, SDM न िरिे वह स्वयां िी क्यों िरते है । यह किसिे आिे ि पर होत है ।

3 यह कि DM, ADM, SDM िे प स शिि यत िरने पर ि यथव ह न होने पर जब आगे शिि यत िी ज ती है तो 5 ि म न र् म गथ में बैठे श्री अिोि िुम र वम थ (JSO) स हब बोलते है कि यह शिि यत िरने ि िोई फ यि नह ां है क्योंकि यह शिि यत यह से Forward िरिे Area Incharge िे प स भेज िे ते हैं। क्योंकि यह य र ज ग र्थन में किसी िी भी नौिर तबह लगती है जब उसिे प स िुबसुरती हो प िे गमथ हो य उसमें वजन हो इतने बर्े अधिि र यह अप िब्ि किसिे आिे ि पर बोल रहे है इसिी ज नि र ि ज ए।

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated NIL seeking the following information:

"1 यह कि दिन ांि 11/09/2022, 22/09/2022 व 28/10/2022 िो दिए गए प्र र्थन पत्र पर आज ति उसि जव ब क्यों नह ां दिय गय अगर ि यथव ह हुई है तो क्य ि यथव ह हुई है उसिी सत्य पपत सांदहत ररपोर्थ िे ने िी िृप िरें ।

2 यह कि जजसिे खिल फ शिि यत िी गई उसिी ज ांच िी ि यथव ह DM, ADM, SDM न िरिे वह स्वयां िी क्यों िरते है । यह किसिे आिे ि पर होत है ।

3 यह कि DM, ADM, SDM िे प स शिि यत िरने पर ि यथव ह न होने पर जब आगे शिि यत िी ज ती है तो 5 ि म न र् म गथ में बैठे श्री अिोि िुम र वम थ (JSO) स हब बोलते है कि यह शिि यत िरने ि िोई फ यि नह ां है क्योंकि यह शिि यत यह से Forward िरिे Area Incharge िे प स भेज िे ते हैं। क्योंकि यह य र ज ग र्थन में किसी िी भी नौिर तबह लगती है जब उसिे प स िुबसुरती हो प िे गमथ हो य उसमें वजन हो इतने बर्े अधिि र यह अप िब्ि किसिे आिे ि पर बोल रहे है इसिी ज नि र ि ज ए।

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated NIL seeking the following information:

"1 यह कि दिन ांि 11/09/2022, 22/09/2022 व 28/10/2022 िो दिए गए प्र र्थन पत्र पर आज ति उसि जव ब क्यों नह ां दिय गय अगर ि यथव ह हुई है तो क्य ि यथव ह हुई है उसिी सत्य पपत सांदहत ररपोर्थ िे ने िी िृप िरें ।

2 यह कि जजसिे खिल फ शिि यत िी गई उसिी ज ांच िी ि यथव ह DM, ADM, SDM न िरिे वह स्वयां िी क्यों िरते है । यह किसिे आिे ि पर होत है ।

3 यह कि DM, ADM, SDM िे प स शिि यत िरने पर ि यथव ह न होने पर जब आगे शिि यत िी ज ती है तो 5 ि म न र् म गथ में बैठे श्री अिोि िुम र वम थ (JSO) स हब बोलते है कि यह शिि यत िरने ि िोई फ यि नह ां है क्योंकि यह शिि यत यह से Forward िरिे Area Incharge िे प स भेज िे ते हैं। क्योंकि यह य र ज ग र्थन में किसी िी भी नौिर तबह लगती है जब उसिे प स िुबसुरती हो प िे गमथ हो य उसमें वजन हो इतने बर्े अधिि र यह अप िब्ि किसिे आिे ि पर बोल रहे है इसिी ज नि र ि ज ए।

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.05.2023 seeking the following information:

"I satyapal Singh was working as a lecturer in Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (GTBPI) at Computer Engineering Department from Aug 2008 to Aug 2018.

Page 1 of 8

Kindly provide me the following information under the RTI Act 2005

1. Provide me Seniority List of DSGMC employees.

2. Provide me my Personal Account Number as a DSGMC Employee.

3. Provide me my Employee Code as DSGMC employee."

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.