<?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>2017 (6) TMI 478 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344207</link>
    <description>The SC upheld the constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act requiring Aadhaar linking with PAN cards. The Court held that Parliament was competent to enact this provision and it does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 of the Constitution. However, the Court provided relief by directing that PAN cards of non-Aadhaar holders should not be treated as invalid for the time being to facilitate other transactions under Rule 114B. The proviso to sub-section (2) was read down to operate prospectively only, not retrospectively from inception. The Court emphasized that the provision aims to eliminate duplicate PAN cards and prevent fictitious applications. Penal provisions for non-compliance were deemed necessary to ensure effectiveness, as violations without consequences would render the law ineffective in achieving its de-duplication objective.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 478 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344207</link>
      <description>The SC upheld the constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act requiring Aadhaar linking with PAN cards. The Court held that Parliament was competent to enact this provision and it does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 of the Constitution. However, the Court provided relief by directing that PAN cards of non-Aadhaar holders should not be treated as invalid for the time being to facilitate other transactions under Rule 114B. The proviso to sub-section (2) was read down to operate prospectively only, not retrospectively from inception. The Court emphasized that the provision aims to eliminate duplicate PAN cards and prevent fictitious applications. Penal provisions for non-compliance were deemed necessary to ensure effectiveness, as violations without consequences would render the law ineffective in achieving its de-duplication objective.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>