Disposed

C I T v. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2026ITA/265/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income tax appeal raising six questions on ITAT decisions regarding revenue vs capital expenditure, 80HHC turnover computation, machinery installation deduction, interest during trial runs, ERP implementation costs and stock valuation. Counsel agreed each question was already answered by earlier orders; the court answered all questions accordingly.

What the court decided

AI extract

C I T Vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

204 ITA-265-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.02.2026

¶4

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Appellant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.

¶7

…Respondent

¶8

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

¶9

Present:Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for Income Tax

¶10

Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the assessee ***

¶11

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

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’).

¶13

The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:-

¶14

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?

¶15

ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the

¶16

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.09 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

ITA-265-2009

¶18

-2-

¶19

ITAT was right in holding that Excise Duty will not form part of "total turnover" while computing deduction u/s 80HHC?

¶20

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

¶21

iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in holding that interest on capital borrowed for acquisition of new machinery and overhead expenses incurred during trial run period in expansion of its existing business are expenses of revenue nature?

¶22

v. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in holding that expenditure incurred on implementation of the new ERP package, an input to take business decisions and which results into carrying on business more efficiently and smoothly, cannot be said to be an advantage accruing in the capital field?

¶23

vi. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition made on account of change in the method of valuation of closing stock in respect of excise duty?

¶24

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that question No.1 raised by appellant stands answered by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in ITA-267-2009 , question No.2 is covered by order dated 27.01.2026 passed in ITA-645-2008 , questions No.3 and 4 are covered by order dated 19.01.2026 passed in ITA-269-2009, question No.5 is covered by

¶25

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.09 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

ITA-265-2009

¶27

-3-

¶28

order dated 05.02.2026 passed in ITA-271-2009 and question No.6 is covered by order dated 27.11.2025 passed in ITA 62 to 65 of 1995.

¶29

The questions raised by appellant are answered in terms of aforesaid orders of this Court.

¶30

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

¶31

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶32

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE

¶33

February 05, 2026

¶34

Deepak DPA

¶35

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶36

DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.09 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C I T v. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C I T v. M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Escorts Jcb Ltd. Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Adarsh Education Society Vs C I T

C I T Vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.

C I T Vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare Ltd.

C I T Vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.

Cit, Chandigarh Vs M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd.