ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Super House Ltd.
Income Tax Appeal No. 107 of 2016 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Revenue appeal dismissed on the recorded historical monetary-limit position; no adjudication of tax merits.
Division Bench · Naheed Ara Moonis · Saumitra Dayal Singh
1. Facts of the case
The Revenue appeal under section 260-A arose from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench B, Lucknow, order dated 30 September 2015 in ITA 630/LKW/2013, AY 2008-09. The High Court docket is Income Tax Appeal No. 107 of 2016.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court recorded the position stated at the Bar that the disputed tax was below Rs.1 crore under CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8 August 2019. The order treats the position as admitted to the parties; it contains no independent computation of disputed tax or examination of assessment merits.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed because the disputed tax was below the recorded threshold limit.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Income Tax Appeal No. 107 of 2016 ended on the stated monetary-limit ground. The order does not adjudicate the underlying AY 2008-09 tax issues or affirm the Tribunal’s reasoning on merits.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Keep this High Court docket linked to ITA 630/LKW/2013 and AY 2008-09. A monetary-limit dismissal is not a substantive approval of the Tribunal’s tax analysis. The historical circular and threshold are recited from this order; they are not a statement of current litigation policy.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page original read. Local original bytes independently match the previously verified individual Drive original SHA-256; source-page visual inspection is recorded in the existing review evidence. No PAN is stated. Later treatment and current law are not cleared.
Source SHA-256: d8570df3f8d8c8382ef85953c466a2a8a5ba282e909f00ca831e1bd8773ddf5c
Only provisions expressly identified in this order are recorded. No current monetary threshold or current statutory equivalence is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-19. Later proceedings 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.