ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Kanpur v. Shimla Foods and Flavours, Lucknow
Income Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2013 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
The appeal was dismissed on the recorded monetary-limit ground.
Division Bench · Rajan Roy · Om Prakash Shukla
1. Facts of the case
Revenue counsel stated that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT and requested dismissal on that ground.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court accepted Revenue counsel’s monetary-limit submission and did not adjudicate the underlying tax merits.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed on the recorded monetary-limit ground.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue’s appeal ended procedurally; the order supplies no independent ruling on the substantive tax dispute.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
No numerical threshold, circular number, tax amount or assessment year is supplied. Do not infer these details from another monetary-limit order or treat this disposal as a merits ruling.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page original read and visually inspected; original PDF bytes verified by SHA-256. Only source-identified provisions and assessment years are recorded. No PAN is stated. Subsequent treatment and current law have not been cleared.
Source SHA-256: 4c38d45de6a924931dbccaeaba14a6e5b0c0bf88b6b15b902953348ecdc9e55d
Only source-identified provisions are recorded. No current monetary threshold, current statutory equivalence or 2025 Act applicability is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-20. Subsequent 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.