<?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>2025 (3) TMI 532 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767146</link>
    <description>The HC upheld the mandatory linkage of Aadhaar with PAN for operating Demat accounts under Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act. A senior citizen petitioner, who deliberately avoided Aadhaar enrollment, challenged the requirement after his bank made his accounts dormant for non-compliance. The court found the provision constitutionally valid, satisfying the Puttaswamy triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The measure serves legitimate state interests in preventing tax evasion, money laundering, and fraudulent transactions in securities markets. Despite acknowledging data security concerns, the court held that adequate safeguards exist and the restriction on privacy is reasonable and proportionate to achieve financial transparency and regulatory oversight.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:33:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 532 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767146</link>
      <description>The HC upheld the mandatory linkage of Aadhaar with PAN for operating Demat accounts under Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act. A senior citizen petitioner, who deliberately avoided Aadhaar enrollment, challenged the requirement after his bank made his accounts dormant for non-compliance. The court found the provision constitutionally valid, satisfying the Puttaswamy triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The measure serves legitimate state interests in preventing tax evasion, money laundering, and fraudulent transactions in securities markets. Despite acknowledging data security concerns, the court held that adequate safeguards exist and the restriction on privacy is reasonable and proportionate to achieve financial transparency and regulatory oversight.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>