Section 2(37A) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 2(37A), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd v ADIT (International Taxation)-II, Hyderabad
ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
My non-resident payees had no PAN and the treaty rate is ten per cent. The officer says s.206AA has a non obstante clause and overrides everything, so twenty per cent it is. Is there a Special Bench on this?
There is, and it is against the department. The Hyderabad Special Bench held that s.206AA will not have an overriding effect over all other provisions of the Act, and that treaty provisions, to the extent more beneficial, override s.206AA by virtue of s.90(2). It answered the question referred to it in the negative and in favour of the assessee, and held that the deductor could not be required to deduct at the higher of the s.206AA rates on payments to non-residents having taxable income in India despite their failure to furnish PANs.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.