COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.(NOW M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/264/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084353200922 December 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission by the assessee's counsel regarding the low tax effect in both appeals. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this fact and requested permission to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn due to the low tax effect. The court explicitly stated that the questions of law would remain open, meaning this decision does not set a precedent on the merits of any substantive legal issue. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax - II, Chandigarh (the Revenue) against M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (the assessee) for assessment years not specified in the judgment. The appeals challenged orders passed by an authority below, the details of which are not provided. The procedural history is limited to the present hearing before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the appeals filed by the Revenue. The primary issue that arose for consideration was the tax effect in both appeals. The assessee's counsel submitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue's counsel was unable to controvert this fact and prayed for withdrawal of the appeals. No specific questions of law were framed or debated, nor were any arguments presented by either side beyond the submission regarding tax effect and the subsequent prayer for withdrawal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

**** 201

Date of Decision: 22.12.2025 1. ITA-264-2009 (O&M)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH ...Appellant Versus

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. (NOW M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.)

...Respondent

2.

ITA-268-2009

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH ...Appellant Versus

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. (NOW M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.)

...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel and

Ms. Kavita Advocate

for appellant-Income Tax Department

Mr. Rohit Jain (through V.C.) with Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for respondent-assessee ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that tax effect in both the appeals is less than prescribed monetary limit. 2.

Learned counsel for the Revenue expressed her inability to controvert aforesaid fact. She prays for withdrawal of instant appeals. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.23 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-264-2009 and ITA-268-2009

-2- 3.

Dismissed as withdrawn in view of low tax effect. Question of law shall remain open. 4.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE December 22, 2025 Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.23 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →