<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (1) TMI 1041 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448642</link>
    <description>Delhi HC held that IT Act prevails over RTI Act regarding disclosure of assessee information. The court ruled that Section 138 of IT Act, being a special provision requiring satisfaction of specified tax commissioners before disclosing third-party information, overrides Section 22 of RTI Act. Information sought about PM CARES Fund approval from Income Tax Department could only be disclosed following IT Act procedures, not RTI Act. Additionally, CIC failed to provide mandatory notice to PM CARES Fund as third party under Section 11 of RTI Act before ordering disclosure. The writ petition was allowed, establishing that CIC lacks jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information covered under Section 138 of IT Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 1041 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448642</link>
      <description>Delhi HC held that IT Act prevails over RTI Act regarding disclosure of assessee information. The court ruled that Section 138 of IT Act, being a special provision requiring satisfaction of specified tax commissioners before disclosing third-party information, overrides Section 22 of RTI Act. Information sought about PM CARES Fund approval from Income Tax Department could only be disclosed following IT Act procedures, not RTI Act. Additionally, CIC failed to provide mandatory notice to PM CARES Fund as third party under Section 11 of RTI Act before ordering disclosure. The writ petition was allowed, establishing that CIC lacks jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information covered under Section 138 of IT Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>