Eee Apppellant v. M/S. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd
High Court
03 Sep 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Eee Apppellant v. M/S. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd
Date of order
03 Sep 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Eee Apppellant v. M/S. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH
108
[TA-367-2018Date of Decision : 3.9.2019
The Principal Secretary of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh
eee APpPellant
Versus
M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.
we Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK HARNARESH SINGH GILL
:::
Present ;Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocatefor the appellant.
:::
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in Stay Application No.4/Chd/2017(arising out of ITA No. 345/Chd./2017) dated 2.4.2018.
At the very outset, counsel for the appellant-revenue has veryfairly accepted that the issue is covered against the Revenue by theDivision Bench judgment of this Court in ITA No. 78 of 2019titled asThe Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Versus M/sMitsubishi Electric Automotive Indsia_ Pvt. Ltd., Manesar, Gurgaondecided on 16.05.2019_|
Dismissed in the same terms.
Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending CM, if
any, also stands disposed of.
(AJAY TEWART)JUDGE(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)JUDGE
3.97019anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned2Yes/NoWhether reportable2Yes/No
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.