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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/437/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099802201926 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 question of law raised in the appeal was not a substantial question of law. This finding was based on the Revenue's concession that the matter was concluded by the High Court's own prior decision in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd. (ITA No. 5 of 2016). In that precedent, an identical issue had been determined not to constitute a substantial question of law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. As the main appeal was dismissed, any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also 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). The ITAT's order pertained to Stay Application Nos. 45 to 47/Chd/2018, which were in relation to ITA Nos. 345, 91 and 92/Chd/2017&2018. The assessment years involved were 2008-2009 to 2010-2011. The Revenue acknowledged that the issue in dispute was already settled by a previous decision of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question of law raised in the appeal is a substantial question of law, as required for an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by the High Court's 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. This earlier decision held that an identical question, as raised in the present appeal, was not a substantial question of law. The Revenue did not present any arguments contrary to this position.

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. 437 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. 437 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 →