C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/308/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080286200820 January 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh held that the appeal stands dismissed in terms of its previous decision in ITA No.403 of 2016. The reasoning is based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, who fairly accepted that the issue in the present appeal is covered by the cited precedent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of based on the binding precedent and the acceptance thereof by the appellant. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh (the Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Special Bench Chandigarh, dated 21.09.2007, in ITA No.320/CHANDI/2005. The respondent is M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (the assessee). The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh is hearing this appeal. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The procedural history involves the ITAT passing an order which is now under challenge before the High Court. The amount in dispute is not stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should follow its previous decision in ITA No.403 of 2016 titled M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 21.11.2018, to decide the present appeal? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in ITA No.403 of 2016. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) fairly accepted the aforesaid fact presented by the respondent (Assessee).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- 201-A IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 20.01.2020 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh Appellant Versus M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): [1] This is an appeal filed under Section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench Chandigarh in ITA No.320/CHANDI/2005, dated 21.09.2007. [2] Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in ITA No.403 of 2016 titled as M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer [3] Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly accepted the aforesaid fact. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.22 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh -2- [4]

The appeal stands dismissed in terms of ITA No.403 of 2016. [5] Since the appeal is dismissed, the pending application, if any, stands disposed of. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE January 20, 2020

pankaj baweja

1.

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.22 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 260

All 82 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →