HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
M/s U.P. Transformers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur
Civil Appeal Nos. 916–921 of 2016
No separate citation stated in the source ·
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Supreme Court Special Lok Adalat: two judicial members and three advocate members · K. V. Viswanathan, J. · Arun Palli, J.
01 · Facts of the case
Civil Appeals 916–921/2016 between U.P. Transformers and the Commissioner were placed before the Supreme Court Special Lok Adalat. The one-page record says there was no settlement and that the matter concerns interpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Act. It gives no assessment year, disputed amount, statutory section or Act year.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
There is no substantive discussion of tax law. The panel records the absence of settlement and directs that the matters be listed before the Court. The heading Award does not change the express no-settlement content.
03 · Judicial decision
The matters were directed to be listed before the Court. No compromise terms, allowance, dismissal or tax-merits determination appears in this record.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Neither side on tax merits; no settlement recorded
List the appeals before the Court
Procedural listing only
The Act year and sections are not stated. This is retained as a tax-proceeding record, not as a substantive Income-tax Act 1961 ratio or proof of later disposal.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Do not mark the tax appeals as settled or finally disposed merely because this source is headed Award. Its text states the opposite: there was no settlement and the appeals were to return to Court. Verify the underlying statutory issues and any later order before reporting the merits or present status.
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
Record of proceedings; individual author not statedOther panel members, not judicial members
Dr Aditya Sondhi, Senior Advocate; Ms N. S. Nappinai, Senior Advocate; Ms Shriya Maini, Advocate-on-RecordAct identified in the reviewed source
Income Tax Act (year not specified in this order)Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 1 PDF pages; SHA-256 d0353199252373fa9814f6a4e67e0ffa7717a6dc2080fca46289b93c750fd628. Original bytes preserved.
- Source heading is Award, but paragraphs 1–2 record no settlement and a listing direction.
- The Act year, sections, AYs and tax amounts are absent and are not invented.
- The panel includes three advocates in addition to the two judicial members; those advocates are not described as Supreme Court judges.
- The proceeding date is23 August 2026; digital-signature annotation25 August 2026 is not substituted as the decision date.
- No neutral or reported citation printed in this order.
- No assessment year is stated in this short procedural record.
Statutory scope
No substantive statutory merits determination in this procedural record
No automatic Income-tax Act2025 mapping or present procedural-status certification.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Subsequent appeals, review proceedings, stays, reversals and later judicial treatment have not been comprehensively checked. This note is not a citator status certificate.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- official record of proceedings — PDF 1 pages
SHA-256: d0353199252373fa9814f6a4e67e0ffa7717a6dc2080fca46289b93c750fd628
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.