CIT, Delhi-VI v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd.
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Penalty under 271(1)(c) - Concealment -No reasonable cause
Held: In pursuant of assessment order, it was not clearly stated that why AO initiated penalty proceedings against assessee and under which part of section 271(1)(c), therefore, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was set aside.
Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 271(1)(c)
A.Y. : 2000-01 to 2002-03
Decision: In favour of revenue.
Case Law Analysis:CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568/[2002] 122 Taxman 620 (Delhi) [Para 3], Dalip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519/ 161 Taxman 218 (SC) [Para 3], T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11/ 161 Taxman 340 (SC) [Para 3], CIT v. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. [2006] 155 Taxman 223 (Delhi) [Para 4], CIT v. O.K. Hosiery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2007] 165 Taxman 515 (Delhi) [Para 11], CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1074 of 2006, dated 14-9-2007] [Para 11] and CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2007] 165 Taxman 593 (Delhi) [Para 11], CIT v. Fibro Tech Chemicals [IT Appeal No. 954 of 2006, dated 14-9-2007] [Para 11], CIT v. Preeti Aggarwala [IT Appeal No. 850 of 2006, dated 15-9-2007] [Para 11], CIT v. Smt. Santosh Sharma [2007] 166 Taxman 223 (Delhi) [Para 11], CIT v. O.P. Lohia [2008] 167 Taxman 217 (Delhi) [Para 11], Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) [Para 12] and CIT v. B.R. Sharma [2005] 275 ITR 303 (Delhi) [Para 12].