ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur v. M/s Super House Leathers Ltd.
Income Tax Appeal No. 233 of 2011 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Appeal dismissed as not maintainable on the recorded low-tax-effect ground; no tax merits adjudicated.
Division Bench · Bharati Sapru · Neeraj Tiwari
1. Facts of the case
The respondent’s counsel, Shri Ashish Bansal stated that the tax effect in this appeal was below the monetary limit. The supplied one-page order states neither the exact tax-effect amount nor the assessment year or underlying assessment issue. The order also records the presence of departmental counsel, Shri Gaurav Mahajan.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court referred to Circular No.21 of 2015 of CIT (A&J), CBDT, New Delhi, and disposed of the appeal on the stated monetary-limit basis. It did not reproduce the circular, discuss its exceptions or examine the underlying tax merits.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the cited circular and the recorded tax-effect statement.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue’s appeal ended by this procedural dismissal. The order does not establish a substantive tax ratio or decide the correctness of an assessment on its merits.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Keep this party, docket and actual order date distinct from other similarly worded disposals. Do not infer an unstated monetary amount or a current filing threshold. Check the applicable circular, its exceptions and relevant date independently before relying on a monetary-limit proposition.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page order read and visually inspected. Original SHA-256 independently reverified; full source text matched the supplied merged-page record. No assessment year or PAN is stated. No later proceedings or current-law clearance is represented.
Source SHA-256: ce97bde6e475d90511dfe62e41ffc7973a01c64017a1206304fd9458ad68d0a7
Only provisions expressly identified in this order are recorded. No substantive tax merits or current statutory equivalence is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-18. Later proceedings, compliance and current precedential treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.