<?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 (11) TMI 1914 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782446</link>
    <description>Section 206AA, as it stood, was read down where a non-resident deductee carried on business in a treaty jurisdiction, so that the tax deduction rate would follow the applicable DTAA rather than the higher default rate for absence of PAN. The Court noted that the issue was covered by its earlier order recognising treaty primacy in such cases and applied that decision to the present matters, resulting in dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 11:13:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1914 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782446</link>
      <description>Section 206AA, as it stood, was read down where a non-resident deductee carried on business in a treaty jurisdiction, so that the tax deduction rate would follow the applicable DTAA rather than the higher default rate for absence of PAN. The Court noted that the issue was covered by its earlier order recognising treaty primacy in such cases and applied that decision to the present matters, resulting in dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>