PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/367/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119229201803 September 2019Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue is covered against the Revenue by the Division Bench judgment of the Court in ITA No. 78 of 2019. The Court noted that the counsel for the appellant-revenue fairly accepted this position. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in the same terms as the precedent judgment. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Secretary of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (the Revenue) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The ITAT's order was in relation to a stay application (Stay Application No.4/Chd/2017) arising from an appeal before the Tribunal (ITA No. 345/Chd./2017) and was dated 2.4.2018. The assessee is M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the appeal. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves an appeal to the High Court against the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issue is covered against the Revenue by a Division Bench judgment of this Court? (Question of law) The Revenue's contention, as presented by its counsel, is that the issue before the High Court is covered against the Revenue by a Division Bench judgment of the same Court in ITA No. 78 of 2019 titled as The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Versus M/s Mitsubishi Electric Automotive Indsia Pvt. Ltd., Manesar, Gurgaon, decided on 16.05.2019. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side on this point, other than implicitly agreeing with the Revenue's concession.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108

ITA-367-2018 Date of Decision : 3.9.2019 The Principal Secretary of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh

...... Appellant Versus M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.

...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present : Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in Stay Application No.4/Chd/2017 (arising out of ITA No. 345/Chd./2017) dated 2.4.2018. At the very outset, counsel for the appellant-revenue has very fairly accepted that the issue is covered against the Revenue by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in ITA No. 78 of 2019 titled as The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Versus M/s Mitsubishi Electric Automotive Indsia Pvt. Ltd., Manesar, Gurgaon, decided on 16.05.2019. Anuradha 2019.09.04 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-367-2018 -2- Dismissed in the same terms. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending CM, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)

JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 3.9.2019 anuradha

Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No Anuradha 2019.09.04 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →