ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central v. Shri Geetambar Anand
Income Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2018 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Revenue appeal dismissed for admitted low tax effect; underlying tax merits were not decided.
Division Bench · Naheed Ara Moonis · Saumitra Dayal Singh
1. Facts of the case
The Revenue appeal under section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arose from the Tribunal, New Delhi, order dated 28 July 2017 in ITA 2218/Del/2014, AY 2008-09. Paragraph 3 records the statement at the Bar that the revenue involved was below Rs.1 crore under CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8 August 2019.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Hon’ble Court recorded that the above position was admitted to the parties and disposed of the appeal on that basis. It did not determine the underlying assessment grounds.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed because the disputed tax was below the stated threshold limit.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue’s appeal ended procedurally. The tax computation, substantive assessment merits and any circular exception were not adjudicated in this short disposal.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Treat this as a source-specific historical procedural result. The stated Rs.1 crore and Circular17/2019 reference are reported as recorded in this order, not as a current threshold or independent circular interpretation. Verify the actual applicable circular, statutory version, exceptions and later treatment for any new matter.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page original read, exact SHA-256 independently verified, complete text compared against the preserved review, and page visually inspected. The stated assessment year is recorded. No PAN is stated. Subsequent treatment and current law are not cleared.
Source SHA-256: b65052d6e53ed7a8734e4dba4d9d6a6b695d309a92ed70e645f4f77815a42859
Only provisions expressly identified in this order are recorded. No substantive tax merits or current statutory equivalence is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-19. 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.