ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Commissioner of Income Tax Central v. Sahara India Hausing Corpn. Ltd.
Income Tax Appeal No. 126 of 2005 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. Any interim order stood discharged.
Division Bench · Sangeeta Chandra · Manish Kumar
1. Facts of the case
No one appeared for the appellant when the case was called. No request for adjournment was made.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court disposed of the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the underlying tax dispute.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. Any interim order stood discharged.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue’s appeal ended procedurally, with conditional removal of any interim protection.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Keep the qualification “if any” attached to the interim order. Non-prosecution does not supply a substantive tax holding. The caption spelling “Hausing” is retained from the supplied order.
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: d51ab093d8efb268b041ff795e2e0b9b9f1c54e557369d87a942281b6b79f84c
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.