Section 206AA

Section 206AA — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 206AA, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Srirangapattinam Desigan Srinivasan v DCIT (CPC-TDS) High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I bought a flat, deducted one per cent under s.194-IA, and CPC has hit me with a demand because the seller's PAN was not linked to Aadhaar. Is there a High Court decision I can put in front of the officer?
  Yes. The Madras High Court disposed of a writ against exactly such a demand by holding that nothing survived for adjudication once Circular No. 6/2024 applied and the department had itself reprocessed the statement and reported no defaults. The judgment is worth having chiefly because it reproduces Circular No. 6/2024 in full, with its file number and date, which is otherwise hard to source.
• Danisco India P Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My overseas vendor has no Indian PAN — must I withhold 20 per cent under section 206AA when the treaty caps the rate at 10 per cent?
  No. The Delhi High Court held on 5 February 2018 that section 206AA, as it stood, must be read down: where the payee operates from a territory whose government has a double taxation avoidance agreement with India, the rate of deduction is the rate the treaty dictates, not 20 per cent. The petitioner remitted fees for technical services to a Singapore company with no Indian PAN; Article 12 of the India-Singapore treaty caps the tax at 10 per cent. Following Azadi Bachao Andolan, the Court held the treaty takes primacy, and noted that Parliament had itself softened the provision by substituting section 206AA(7) with effect from 1 June 2016.
• Naresh Bhavani Shah (HUF) v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The HUF's money was invested in the karta's own name, so the TDS certificate and the 26AS entry carry his individual PAN. The HUF offered the interest to tax and the karta claimed no credit. The department says PAN mismatch, no credit. What now?
  The credit was directed to be given to the HUF. The Court held that the ordinary route is Rule 37BA(2) - the deductee files a declaration with the deductor, and the deductor issues the certificate in the name of the person entitled to credit - and that this procedure must invariably be completed before credit can be claimed where the certificate shows someone else's name and PAN. But it also held there is no dearth of power in the department to give credit in a genuine case, and on these special facts it directed credit on the karta filing an affidavit that the money and the income were not his and that he had claimed no credit.
• A. Kowsalya Bai v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My income is below the taxable limit and I filed Form 15G, but the finance company says it cannot act on it without a PAN. Can section 206AA be applied to me?
  No. The Karnataka High Court read section 206AA down as inapplicable to persons whose income is below the taxable limit. Section 139A obliges only certain persons to obtain a permanent account number, and a person with income below the exemption limit is not among them. Section 206AA, which invalidates a section 197A declaration filed without a PAN, runs contrary to that earlier provision and, so applied, is discriminatory. The Court held that banking and financial institutions must not insist on a PAN from such small investors, adding that any evasion or concealment can be dealt with under the penal provisions. Section 206AA continues to apply to those above the taxable limit.
• Shailesh Veljibhai Paladiya v. ITO, TDS Ward-2, Surat (ITAT Surat) — section 206AA cannot be invoked where section 194-IA itself is not attracted, and deducting one per cent by mistake is not an admission of liability ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I deducted one per cent on a land purchase where the sellers had no PAN, and the officer says I should have deducted twenty per cent under section 206AA. The land was agricultural. Can he charge me the difference because I deducted something?
  No. The Tribunal held that section 206AA merely prescribes a higher rate where tax is otherwise deductible and does not create an independent liability to deduct, so unless the transaction falls within section 194-IA the enhanced rate cannot be invoked at all. The land being agricultural, section 194-IA was not attracted, and the section 201(1) demand of Rs 44,95,590 and the section 201(1A) interest of Rs 42,25,854 were both deleted.
• Sanchit Gupta v DCIT (CPC), TDS ITATHelps taxpayer
  I bought a flat and deducted 1 per cent under s.194-IA. CPC has raised a 20 per cent short-deduction demand because the seller's PAN was inoperative for want of Aadhaar linking. The seller has since linked it. Is there any way out?
  Yes, but not the one most people reach for. The Delhi Bench held that the assessee fell outside the CBDT relief circulars on his dates, and that subsequent linking does not retrospectively cure the position. It nonetheless directed that no s.206AA liability be cast on him if the seller is shown to have declared the sale in her return and paid the tax, applying the Ansal Landmark principle by analogy, and remitted the matter for verification — observing that the department was equally responsible for not red-flagging inoperative PANs in its own system.
• ITO (TDS-3), Ahmedabad v. Tarun Santramdas Varma (ITAT Ahmedabad) — rural agricultural land is outside section 194-IA, and the Revenue's appeal against deletion of a Rs 1.69 crore section 201 demand was dismissed ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The TDS officer says I should have deducted under section 194-IA on land I bought, and has applied twenty per cent under section 206AA because the farmer-sellers had no PAN. The land is agricultural. Does that answer the demand?
  Yes, if you can prove the land is rural agricultural land. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the deletion of a Rs 1,69,34,640 demand, holding that the lands qualified as rural agricultural land and fell outside the scope of section 194-IA, so the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and the section 201(1A) interest was not sustainable either.
• Parul Sharma v ITO (TDS), Noida ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The CIT(A) refused me the benefit of the PAN-Aadhaar circular because he said I was relying on the wrong circular. Is there a Tribunal order that simply directs the officer to apply the extended date?
  Yes. The Delhi Bench set aside both the s.200A intimation and the CIT(A) order and directed the Assessing Officer to give the assessee the extended benefit of the CBDT circular of 23 April 2024 and pass a fresh order. It is a short order and the relief is a direction to apply the circular, not a deletion of the demand outright.
• Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd v ADIT (International Taxation)-II, Hyderabad ITATHelps taxpayer
  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.
• Statutory position — s.206AB and s.206CCA omitted, and s.206C(1H) disapplied, from 1 April 2025 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  Do I still have to run the compliance check and deduct at the higher non-filer rate, and does my client still have to collect TCS on his sales of goods?
  No to both, for anything on or after 1 April 2025. Section 206AB and section 206CCA were omitted by the Finance Act 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025 and no longer exist. Section 206C(1H) has not been omitted from the statute book, but a third proviso inserted by the Finance Act 2025 provides that nothing contained in that sub-section shall apply from 1 April 2025, and the department's own guidance states that the provisions of s.206C(1H) are not applicable from that date and that s.194Q applies to the sale of goods.
• Statutory position — s.194A: tax on interest other than interest on securities, with the threshold at ₹50,000 for a bank, co-operative bank or post office, ₹1,00,000 for a senior citizen and ₹10,000 in any other case — the 1961 Act position from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My bank has deducted tax on my fixed deposit interest and I was told the limit had gone up. My father is a senior citizen and his bank deducted too. There is also a loan I took from a friend on which I pay interest, and a co-operative society that pays me interest on a deposit. Who exactly has to deduct under section 194A, on what amount, and what are the limits as they stand now?
  Section 194A requires any person who is not an individual or a Hindu undivided family, and who pays a resident interest other than interest on securities, to deduct tax at the rates in force at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier. An individual or HUF is drawn in only by the proviso to sub-section (1), and only if total sales, gross receipts or turnover exceeded one crore rupees in business or fifty lakh rupees in profession in the preceding financial year. Section 194A(3)(i) sets the thresholds. From 1 April 2025 they are fifty thousand rupees where the payer is a banking company, a co-operative society carrying on banking business or a post office deposit scheme, one lakh rupees where the payee is a senior citizen, and ten thousand rupees in any other case — each figure substituted by Act No. 7 of 2025, the Finance Act, 2025. Section 194A(3) also carries the exclusions: interest paid to a banking company, a financial corporation, the Life Insurance Corporation, the Unit Trust of India or an insurer under clause (iii); interest paid by a firm to its partner under clause (iv); the co-operative society exemptions in clauses (v) and (viia), which since 1 April 2020 are switched off only where both conditions in the proviso are met — the society's turnover exceeded fifty crore rupees in the preceding financial year and the interest to that payee crossed one lakh rupees for a senior citizen or fifty thousand rupees for anyone else; and the two Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal limbs in clauses (ix) and (ixa), where interest credited is never liable and interest paid is liable only above fifty thousand rupees in the financial year — a figure the Finance Act, 2025 did not move. Section 197A(1A) and (1C) let a payee stop the deduction by declaration — Form No. 15G, or Form No. 15H for a resident individual aged sixty or more, both prescribed by rule 29C. From 1 April 2026 the Income-tax Act, 1961 was repealed by section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025; the successor is section 393(1) of the 2025 Act, whose Table carries the same three figures.
• Statutory position — s.194J: two per cent on technical fees and film royalty, ten per cent on everything else, and a fifty thousand rupee threshold that never reaches a director CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I pay a consultant, I pay an engineering firm for technical work, and I pay my company's non-executive director a sitting fee. Do I deduct two per cent or ten per cent on each, and does the fifty thousand rupee limit apply to all three?
  Section 194J does not have one rate. Since 1 April 2020 it has two, and which one you use depends on which limb of sub-section (1) the payment falls into: two per cent for fees for technical services that are not professional services and for royalty that is consideration for the sale, distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films; ten per cent for everything else the section catches — professional fees, director's remuneration, other royalty and a non-compete sum under s.28(va) — and two per cent again, under a separate proviso, where the payee is engaged only in the business of operation of a call centre. The threshold in the first proviso is fifty thousand rupees, raised from thirty thousand by the Finance Act, 2025 with effect from 1 April 2025, and it is set out limb by limb for clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) only — clause (ba), the director limb, is not in that list, so a single rupee of director's fee carries tax. An individual or Hindu undivided family is outside the section altogether unless the second proviso pulls them back in, and then only for fees for professional or technical services. All of this governs a sum credited or paid up to 31 March 2026: the Income-tax Act, 1961 stands repealed on 1 April 2026, and for a payment on or after that date the governing provision is section 393(1), Table, Serial No. 6(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 2025, which carries the same two rates and the same fifty thousand rupee threshold.
• Statutory position — s.194-IA: the fifty lakh threshold, the multiple-transferor/transferee proviso from 1 October 2024, and the stamp duty value base from 1 April 2022 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  Four of us bought one flat and each of us paid under fifty lakh rupees. The TDS officer says we should have deducted under section 194-IA. Did we have to, and does the answer depend on when we bought?
  It depends entirely on the date. From 1 October 2024 sub-section (2) carries a proviso which says that where there is more than one transferor or transferee in respect of any immovable property, the consideration is the aggregate of the amounts paid or payable by all the transferees to the transferor or all the transferors — so a flat bought by four buyers for Rs 80 lakh is inside section 194-IA even though each buyer pays Rs 20 lakh. For a transfer before that date there is no such aggregation rule in the section, and the Tribunal has repeatedly read the obligation as arising qua each transferee.
• Statutory position — s.194-IB and s.194M: the once-a-year deduction on rent, the cap that operates only under s.206AA, the gateway that keeps most individuals out of s.194M, and why neither needs a TAN CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I am an individual paying Rs 70,000 a month rent, and separately I have paid an interior contractor Rs 62 lakh for my own house. When exactly do I deduct, how much, and do I need a TAN?
  Under section 194-IB you deduct once, not monthly: the tax is deducted at the time of credit of rent for the last month of the previous year, or the last month of the tenancy if you vacate during the year, or at the time of payment of that rent, whichever is earlier, and the rate is two per cent of the income by way of rent, substituted for five per cent with effect from 1 October 2024. Under section 194M you deduct two per cent, again substituted for five per cent from the same date, but only if you are not a person required to deduct under section 194C, 194H or 194J, and only if the sum or aggregate of sums credited or paid to that resident during the financial year exceeds fifty lakh rupees. Neither section requires a TAN: section 194-IB(3) and section 194M(2) each disapply section 203A.
• Statutory position — s.194M and s.194-IB: the rate fell from five per cent to two per cent on 1 October 2024 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My client is an individual paying a contractor and also paying rent. He has no TAN. What does he deduct, and at what rate?
  Two per cent under either section, for anything on or after 1 October 2024; five per cent before that. Section 194M applies to an individual or HUF not already covered by s.194C, s.194H or s.194J who pays a resident more than fifty lakh rupees in a financial year for contract work, commission or brokerage or professional fees. Section 194-IB applies to an individual or HUF outside the second proviso to s.194-I who pays a resident rent exceeding fifty thousand rupees for a month or part of a month. Neither section requires a TAN, because s.203A is disapplied in both.
• Statutory position — s.197: the Assessing Officer may certify a lower rate, or nil, for a listed section, but only on the payee's application and only for a period of the previous year — the 1961 Act position, for deductions up to 31 March 2026 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My money is stuck. Every invoice I raise has tax deducted at the full rate, my actual tax for the year is far less than the deductions, and I only get it back a year later when the refund comes. Somebody told me to apply for a lower-deduction certificate under section 197. What does section 197 actually say — which payments does it cover, what does the Assessing Officer have to be satisfied about, what form do I file, and can the certificate be backdated to cover the deductions already made?
  Section 197(1) lets the payee apply to the Assessing Officer for a certificate that the payer may deduct at a lower rate, or not at all. It is not open-ended: it works only for the sections named in it, and the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that “the total income of the recipient justifies” the lower rate. The list is sections 192, 193, 194, 194A, 194C, 194D, 194G, 194H, 194-I, 194J, 194K, 194LA, 194LBA, 194LBB, 194LBC, 194M, 194-O, 194Q and 195 — 194LBA was added by Act No. 8 of 2023 with effect from 1 April 2023 and 194Q by Act No. 15 of 2024 with effect from 1 October 2024. Section 197(2) then binds the payer: once a certificate is given, he deducts at the certified rate, or nothing, until the Assessing Officer cancels it. Section 197(2A) is the rule-making power, and the rules made under it are rule 28 (application in Form No. 13, filed electronically), rule 28AA (how the rate is worked out and how long the certificate lasts) and rule 28AB (a no-deduction certificate for trusts and other section 139(4C) filers). Nothing in the section or the rules confers a power to backdate a certificate, and in substance it operates forward: rule 28AA(4) sends it to the named deductor, who cannot un-deduct months already past. From 1 April 2026 this machinery is gone — the Income-tax Act, 1961 was repealed by section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and the successor is section 395 of the 2025 Act, applied for in Form No. 128 under rule 213 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026, and from the same date section 395(6) lets that application go to a prescribed income-tax authority instead of the Assessing Officer.
• Statutory position — section 139AA(2) and rule 114AAA: what an inoperative PAN actually does, and the CBDT circulars that undo it CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  CPC has raised a short-deduction demand on me because my payee's PAN was inoperative for want of Aadhaar linking. What exactly does an inoperative PAN do, and is there any Board relief?
  An inoperative PAN carries four consequences and only four, and rule 114AAA(3) lists them: no refund of tax is made, no interest is payable on that refund for the period, tax deductible under Chapter XVII-B is deducted at the higher rate under section 206AA, and tax collectible under Chapter XVII-BB is collected at the higher rate under section 206CC. The third and fourth of those fall on the DEDUCTOR or COLLECTOR, not on the person who failed to link, which is why the demand lands on someone who did nothing wrong. The Board has issued a sequence of circulars relieving the deductor where the PAN is made operative by a date, and the sequence — Circular No. 3/2023 dated 28 March 2023, Circular No. 6/2024 dated 23 April 2024 and Circular No. 9/2025 dated 21 July 2025 — is the first thing to check, before any argument on merits.
• Statutory position — section 206AA, sub-section (7) and rule 37BC: the twenty per cent rate, the five per cent provisos, and the non-resident's way out CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My non-resident payee has no PAN. Must I deduct at twenty per cent, and is there any prescribed alternative?
  Section 206AA(1) requires a deductee to furnish his permanent account number, failing which tax is deducted at the higher of the rate specified in the relevant provision, the rates in force, or twenty per cent — but two provisos substitute five per cent for twenty where the deduction is under section 194-O or section 194Q. Sub-section (7) disapplies the section altogether to a non-resident not being a company and to a foreign company in respect of interest on long-term bonds under section 194LC and any other payment subject to prescribed conditions, and rule 37BC prescribes those conditions. Under rule 37BC(1) the section does not apply to interest, royalty, fees for technical services, dividend and payments on transfer of any capital asset if the deductee furnishes the four items in sub-rule (2) to the deductor.
• Statutory position — s.195: tax is deducted only on a sum “chargeable under the provisions of this Act”, and Explanation 2 fixes who owes the duty, not what is taxable CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  In March 2026 I remitted a fee to a company outside India without deducting anything, because I did not think any part of it was taxable here. The Assessing Officer now says section 195 obliged me to deduct on the whole remittance, or at least to apply to him before paying. Does section 195 say that — and since the new Act has come in, which Act governs my payment at all?
  Which Act governs is settled by one date: on the CBDT's transition FAQ, where the earlier of credit or payment falls on or before 31 March 2026 the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies, and where it falls on or after 1 April 2026 the Income-tax Act, 2025 applies instead — there, the deduction duty sits in section 393(2), Table, Serial No. 17. So a March 2026 remittance is a section 195 question. Section 195(1) does not tax a remittance; it attaches a deduction duty to “any interest … or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act” paid to a non-resident or a foreign company, at the time of credit or of payment, whichever is earlier. Those five words are the gateway, and in GE India Technology Centre the Supreme Court held on 9 September 2010 that they cannot be read out of the sub-section: a payer who is fairly certain that no part of the sum is chargeable in India may make that determination himself and is not obliged to apply under section 195(2) first. Section 195(2) is the payer's application where a composite payment is partly chargeable; section 197 is a different route, taken by the recipient. Sub-section (6) requires information about every sum, whether or not chargeable, in the form prescribed by rule 37BB — which is why the bank asks for a 15CA even where nothing is deductible.
• Statutory position — s.192A: ten per cent on a premature provident fund withdrawal, a fifty thousand rupee floor, and the Fourth Schedule rule that decides whether the section applies at all CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  I left my job after three years and withdrew my EPF balance. The trustees deducted tax and I have no Form 16. On what was the deduction made, and what happens because I had not given my PAN?
  Section 192A bites only where the accumulated balance is taxable, and it is rule 8 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule that decides that. The section requires the trustees of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, framed under section 5 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, or any person authorised under the scheme to make payment of accumulated balance due to employees, to deduct income-tax at ten per cent where the accumulated balance due to an employee participating in a recognised provident fund is includible in his total income owing to the provisions of rule 8 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule not being applicable, and to do so at the time of payment. The only proviso now in the section sets a floor: no deduction where the amount of the payment, or the aggregate amount of the payment to the payee, is less than fifty thousand rupees. The second proviso, which required a Permanent Account Number and imposed the maximum marginal rate in its absence, was omitted by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 1 April 2023, so the consequence of no PAN is now whatever section 206AA produces.

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.