Let's evaluate each statement: A) Both, the Planning Commission and the Finance Commission are institutions for the transfer of resources from Centre to the States. This is correct. FC recommends tax devolution and grants, while PC allocated plan resources. B) Recommendations given by both are binding on the Government. This is incorrect. Finance Commission recommendations on tax devolution are usually accepted and are quasi-binding by convention, but technically not legally binding like a judicial order. Planning Commission recommendations were advisory and implemented due to the PC's influence and position, but were not legally binding. The statement claims binding nature for both, which is false. C) While PC is a permanent body FC is constituted every 5 years. This statement is incorrect. The Finance Commission is a constitutional body constituted every five years (Article 280), which is correct. However, the Planning Commission was an extra-constitutional, non-statutory body and was not a permanent body; it was dissolved in 2014. Since the first part of the 'while' clause is false, the entire statement comparing them on this basis is incorrect. D) FC awards non-plan resources while PC allocates plan resources. This was historically correct. The Finance Commission primarily dealt with the distribution of non-plan revenue resources and grants, while the Planning Commission was responsible for formulating five- year plans and allocating resources for these plans (plan expenditure).Comparing options B and C, both are incorrect. However, statement B makes a direct assertion about the authority of both bodies' recommendations, which is a fundamental point of distinction and clearly false for the PC. Statement C contains a false premise about the PC's status. In the context of UPSC questions, statement B is generally considered the intended "not correct" statement when comparing the nature of recommendations from these two bodies before the abolition of PC.