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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/84/2020HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01034414202013 July 2022Bench: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. This decision was based on the concession made by the revenue's counsel, Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel. She acknowledged that the question of law involved in the instant appeal was already decided against the revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its common judgment dated 06.04.2021 in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.1106 of 2021). The High Court found the revenue's stand to be fair and, in light of the Apex Court's judgment, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the precedent.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (the revenue) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The ITAT's order was passed in a stay application (SA No.57/Chd./2019) related to an appeal (ITA No.92/Chd./2018) dated 04.10.2019. The respondent is M/s GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited (the assessee). The High Court is hearing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the concession made by the revenue's counsel. The revenue, represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, conceded that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered against the revenue by a common judgment dated 06.04.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1106 of 2021 titled as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. The assessee's contentions are not recorded as the appeal was dismissed based on 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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.84-2020 Date of Decision:13.07.2022 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh .......Appellant Versus M/s GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for appellant. ***** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.(Oral) Instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in SA No.57/Chd./2019 in ITA No.92/Chd./2018 dated 04.10.2019. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant at the very outset concedes that the question involved in the instant appeal would be covered against the revenue in the light of common judgment dated 06.04.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1106 of 2021 titled as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. arising out of SLP (Civil) No.30284 of 2015. In the light of such fair stand taken on behalf of the appellant, the instant appeal is dismissed in terms of judgment of the Apex Court passed in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)

JUDGE (PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE 13.07.2022 shweta

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SHWETA 2022.07.14 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →