C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/266/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084355200905 February 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that all three questions raised in the appeal had already been settled by previous orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee. The appellant's counsel could not controvert these submissions.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against an ITAT order. The High Court was asked to adjudicate on three questions related to product development expenditure, excise duty in turnover for Section 80HHC, and deduction under Section 80-I for machinery installation.

What were the issues?

Whether product development expenditure is revenue or capital, whether excise duty is part of 'total turnover' for Section 80HHC, and eligibility for deduction under Section 80-I for expansion of existing factory.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80HHC,Section 80-I

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 204

ITA-266-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant Vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.

…Respondents

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

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

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and

Ms. Kavita, Advocate for Income Tax

Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate (through V.C.) and

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the assessee

*** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.03.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘ITAT’). 2.

The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- i. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in treating the expenditure incurred on product development as revenue expenditure, when the purpose of the expenditure & its intended reality is to obtain benefit of enduring nature? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that Excise Duty will not form part DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.09 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-266-2009

-2 -

of "total turnover" while computing deduction u/s 80HHC? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in allowing the deduction u/s 80-I of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machinery had been installed in the same existing factory premises, which is an expansion of the existing factory? 3.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that question No.1 stands answered by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in ITA- 267-2009. Question No.2 stands settled in favour of assessee vide order dated 27.01.2026 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works”, [2007] 160 Taxman 404 (SC). Question No.3 also stands answered in favour of assessee vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court in ITA-269-2009. 4.

Learned counsel for appellant expressed her inability to controvert aforesaid statement. 5.

In the wake of statement of both sides, questions raised by appellant are answered in view of orders of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court as noticed hereinabove. 6.

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

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE February 05, 2026 Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.09 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →