SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business, as under: A.Y. Peak

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business, as under: A.Y. Peak

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business, as under: A.Y. Peak

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business, as under: A.Y. Peak

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business, as under: A.Y. Peak

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business, as under: A.Y. Peak

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business, as under: A.Y. Peak

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business, as under: A.Y. Peak

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them, the aforesaid calculation of peak has to be further divided in both the appellant assesse being 50% share of each in the business, as under: A.Y. Peak

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) -1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act (in respect of quantum addition already deleted by ITAT in aforesaid order dated. 22.12.2020 in ITA No.- 3152/Del/2018) is hereby cancelled. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of PCIT- Delhi-III, vs. Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd., ITA No.313/2016 date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act (in respect of quantum addition already deleted by ITAT in aforesaid order dated. 22.12.2020 in ITA No.- 3152/Del/2018) is hereby cancelled. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of PCIT- Delhi-III, vs. Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd., ITA No.313/2016 date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act (in respect of quantum addition already deleted by ITAT in aforesaid order dated. 22.12.2020 in ITA No.- 3152/Del/2018) is hereby cancelled. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of PCIT- Delhi-III, vs. Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd., ITA No.313/2016 date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act (in respect of quantum addition already deleted by ITAT in aforesaid order dated. 22.12.2020 in ITA No.- 3152/Del/2018) is hereby cancelled. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of PCIT- Delhi-III, vs. Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd., ITA No.313/2016 date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act (in respect of quantum addition already deleted by ITAT in aforesaid order dated. 22.12.2020 in ITA No.- 3152/Del/2018) is hereby cancelled. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of PCIT- Delhi-III, vs. Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd., ITA No.313/2016 date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act (in respect of quantum addition already deleted by ITAT in aforesaid order dated. 22.12.2020 in ITA No.- 3152/Del/2018) is hereby cancelled. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of PCIT- Delhi-III, vs. Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd., ITA No.313/2016 date