https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756073 Section 206AA's higher tax deduction rate for absence of PAN was at issue in relation to payments made to non-resident companies, with the High Court having held that it should not be applied to defeat DTAA benefits in the facts considered. The Supreme Court did not examine that substantive question because it found the explanation for a 255-day delay in filing the special leave petition unsatisfactory and dismissed the petition on delay, while keeping the question of law open. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. and connected cases. en-us Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jul 2024 13:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756073 Section 206AA's higher tax deduction rate for absence of PAN was at issue in relation to payments made to non-resident companies, with the High Court having held that it should not be applied to defeat DTAA benefits in the facts considered. The Supreme Court did not examine that substantive question because it found the explanation for a 255-day delay in filing the special leave petition unsatisfactory and dismissed the petition on delay, while keeping the question of law open. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. and connected cases. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756073