##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

204 ITA-418-2008 (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)

1. 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 21.09.2007 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 the facts and in the circumstances of the case the

ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in

1 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 23:44:50 :::

ITA-418-2008 -2-

deleting the disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-IA of

the 1961 Act, in as much as the machineries had been installed

in the same existing factory premises, which were in the nature

of routine replacements with better capacity?

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

ITAT is right in law in treating the expenditure incurred on

promotional and trade marketing as revenue expenditure, when

the purpose of the expenditure & its intended reality is to

obtain benefit of enduring nature?

iii. 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?

iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the

Hon'ble ITAT was right in allowing deduction u/s 43B of the

1961 Act for tax duty etc. on payment basis before incurring

the liability to pay such amounts?

3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that questions No.1

and 3 stand answered by order dated 19.01.2026 passed by this Court in ITA-

269-2009, question No.2 by order dated 04.02.2026 in ITA-267-2009 and

question No.4 by order dated 04.02.2026 passed in ITA-325-2016.

4. The questions raised by appellant are answered in terms of

aforesaid orders of this Court.

2 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 23:44:50 :::

ITA-418-2008 -3-

5. 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

3 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2026 23:44:50 :::