ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED INTERIM / PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur and another v. Uflex Ltd,.
INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 2 of 2025 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
List with IAPLD 1,3,4 of 2025 and IAPL 6/2025 on 30 January 2025; show respondent counsel R.S.Agarwal in the cause list.
Division Bench · Arun Bhansali · Vikas Budhwar
1. Facts of the case
Respondent counsel objected to territorial jurisdiction, asserting the assessing officer was at Delhi and relying on ABC Papers. Related appeals arose from the same 26 July 2024 order.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court recorded the objection but did not decide it.
3. Judicial decision
List with IAPLD 1,3,4 of 2025 and IAPL 6/2025 on 30 January 2025; show respondent counsel R.S.Agarwal in the cause list.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Jurisdiction and appeal merits remained undecided.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
A territorial objection was preserved for consideration
Uflex invoked ABC Papers and asserted that the assessing officer who made the assessment was situated in Delhi. The Court recorded the objection and the existence of related appeals from the 26 July 2024 order. It did not decide territorial jurisdiction on 21 January 2025.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
Related listing was the operative step
Defective Appeal 2/2025 was to be listed with Defective Appeals 1, 3 and 4 and Appeal 6/2025 on 30 January 2025. The appearance direction ensures the respondent’s counsel is shown; it does not amount to admitting or allowing the appeal. Any later withdrawal or forum decision is a separate dated event.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
Source and verification
Complete supplied 1-page original read and visually inspected; original bytes independently SHA-256 verified against source map and ledger. No present-law or subsequent-treatment clearance is claimed.
Source SHA-256: 567cc5ffb8831f880b85763171ece791ec9acf7c3fc6053a4edf51c5503a42a2
Only source-identified provisions are recorded. No current monetary threshold, current statutory equivalence or 2025 Act applicability is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-21. 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 Expert Comments section is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.