Section 234H — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 234H, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Sanchit Gupta v DCIT (CPC), TDS
ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
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.
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.