ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Kanpur and another v. M/s Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appeal No. 5 Of 2025 ·
2025:AHC:14607-DB
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file before the jurisdictional High Court. Filed certified ITAT copies were to be returned against counsel-authenticated photocopies.
Division Bench · Arun Bhansali · Vikas Budhwar
1. Facts of the case
Revenue challenged orders of the Delhi ITAT. The respondent objected to Allahabad territorial jurisdiction because the assessing authority was in Delhi, relying on PCIT v ABC Papers Ltd. (2022)289 Taxman 150.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Revenue counsel, on instructions, sought withdrawal in view of that objection with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. The Bench accepted this procedural course.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file before the jurisdictional High Court. Filed certified ITAT copies were to be returned against counsel-authenticated photocopies.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Withdrawal with refiling liberty; no tax-merits determination.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
Withdrawal followed the territorial objection
Montage Enterprises relied on ABC Papers and the assessing authority’s location at Delhi. Revenue sought withdrawal with liberty to file before the jurisdictional High Court, and the Court granted it. The result concerns the chosen forum, not correctness of the Tribunal’s tax decision.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
Return of the certified copy supports refiling
The Tribunal judgment’s certified copy, if filed, was to be returned against a photocopy authenticated by counsel. That direction does not establish that refiling occurred or that any delay was condoned. This Appeal 5/2025 is distinct from the Uflex common order, despite the same date and similar reasoning.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order
Source and verification
Complete supplied 1-page original read and all source page images visually inspected; original bytes verified by SHA-256 against the ledger. No PAN is stated. Subsequent treatment and current law have not been cleared.
Source SHA-256: 48cc64bdf3aede75becb265e1f26e839beadca9f7871f7b51c0dfc3b4b2858fa
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.