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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/395/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099803201926 February 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by its own prior decision in ITA No.5 of 2016, titled "Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.", decided on 25.04.2016. In that judgment, an identical question as claimed in the present appeal was held not to be a substantial question of law. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal was dismissed. Since the main case was dismissed, any pending Civil Misc. Application also stood disposed of.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The appeal pertains to Stay Application Nos. 45 to 47/Chd/2018 in ITA Nos. 345, 91 and 92/Chd/2017&2018, concerning assessment years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011. The assessee is M/s GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited. The Revenue did not dispute that the issue was already decided by the High Court in a similar case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question of law arising from the ITAT's order is a substantial question of law, as required for an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not present any arguments as the Revenue conceded that the matter was concluded by a prior High Court decision. The Revenue acknowledged that the issue in the present appeal was identical to the one decided in ITA No.5 of 2016, titled "Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.", decided on 25.04.2016, where it was held that there was no substantial question of law. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not dispute that the matter was no longer res integra and stood concluded by the decision of the High Court in the cited case.

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 ITA No. 395 of 2019 Date of Decision: 26.02.2020. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh .......Appellant Versus M/s GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), against the order dated 10.04.2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench 'A' Chandigarh, in Stay Application No. 45 to 47/Chd/2018 in ITA Nos. 345,91 and 92/Chd/2017&2018) for the assessment year 2008-2009 to 2010- 2011. 2. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant- Revenue that the matter in issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of this Court in ITA No.5 of 2016, titled as “Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refigeration Ltd.”, decided on 25.04.2016, whereby, identical question as claimed in the present appeal, has been held not to be substantial question of law. 3. For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. REEMA SAINI 2020.02.27 08:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

ITA No. 395 of 2019 -2- 4. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) 26.02.2020 JUDGE reema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No REEMA SAINI 2020.02.27 08:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →