<?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>2018 (1) TMI 279 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353543</link>
    <description>The High Court of Madras upheld the validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, which mandates the requirement of providing Aadhaar number for income tax purposes. The court emphasized the importance of Aadhaar in combating black money and tax evasion. It ruled that Section 139AA does not violate the right to carry on a profession or trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court partially stayed a provision pending further review by a Constitution Bench on the aspect of Right to Privacy under Article 21. The writ petition was dismissed without costs, with the partial stay applying to transactions requiring PAN quoting as per Rule 114B of the Rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 279 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353543</link>
      <description>The High Court of Madras upheld the validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, which mandates the requirement of providing Aadhaar number for income tax purposes. The court emphasized the importance of Aadhaar in combating black money and tax evasion. It ruled that Section 139AA does not violate the right to carry on a profession or trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court partially stayed a provision pending further review by a Constitution Bench on the aspect of Right to Privacy under Article 21. The writ petition was dismissed without costs, with the partial stay applying to transactions requiring PAN quoting as per Rule 114B of the Rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>