SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER BRANDS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/95/2003HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01046770200319 January 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present appeal stands settled against the assessee. This decision is based on a prior order passed by the same Court on 27.11.2025 in a batch of Income Tax References (ITR-62 to 69-1995). The Court found that the present appeal was covered by the ratio decidendi of that earlier judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in terms of the previous order. No specific findings on the merits of the present appeal were elaborated, as it was disposed of based on precedent. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Smithkline Beecham Consumer Brands Ltd, is challenging an order or action by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in this judgment. The procedural history indicates that this appeal is being decided based on a prior order of the same High Court. The High Court had previously passed an order dated 27.11.2025 in a set of related Income Tax References (ITR-62 to 69-1995), which the present appeal is stated to be settled by.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issue involved in the present appeal stands settled against the assessee by the High Court's previous order dated 27.11.2025 in ITR-62 to 69-1995. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra and stands settled against the assessee vide the aforementioned order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court in ITR-62 to 69-1995. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the dismissal of the appeal in terms of the previous order implies the revenue's position was aligned with that prior ruling.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 201-1

ITA-95-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.01.2026 SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER BRANDS LTD ...Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…Respondent

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

Present:- Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate(through V.C.) Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the assessee

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel and

for Income Tax Department

*** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved herein is no more res integra and stands settled against the assessee vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court in ITR-62 to 69-1995. 2.

Dismissed in terms of order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court in ITR-62-65 of 1995. 3.

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

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE January 19, 2026 Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.01.19 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →