OMEC Engineers v. CIT

294 ITR 599High Court2007#4732 most cited

What is OMEC Engineers v. CIT authority for?

A penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act for violation of section 269SS cannot be imposed if the authorities do not find that the transaction was not genuine or was a sham transaction to cover up unaccounted money, and the assessee's return was accepted after scrutiny under section 143(3).

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

OMEC Engineers v CIT · 294 ITR 599 · section 271D · section 269SS · penalty · genuine transaction · bona fide belief · section 143(3)

Also reported as

294 Taxmann 599

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 153ASection 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 143(l)(a)section 114(e)penalty under section 271eexport oriented unitsection 245hsection 261section 269tpenalty under section 271dsection 34(1)(iv)section 273section 36(va)section 271d

Judgments citing OMEC Engineers v. CIT

Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. JCIT Central Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5866/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.5866/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O C.S. Anand, Adv. Central Circle-1, B-81, First Floor (Part B), Vs. Delhi. Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110024. Pan-Aakcs6743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shric.S. Anand & Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advs. Department By Shrimanish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025

Section 153CSection 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY,JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5866/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21) Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. JCIT, C/o C.S. Anand, Adv. Central Circle-1, B-81, First Floor (Part B), Vs. Delhi. Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110024. PAN-AAKCS6743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by ShriC.S. Anand, and Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advs. Department by ShriManish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: Both the appeals filed b…

Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. JCIT Central Range-1, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5865/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.5866/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O C.S. Anand, Adv. Central Circle-1, B-81, First Floor (Part B), Vs. Delhi. Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110024. Pan-Aakcs6743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shric.S. Anand & Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advs. Department By Shrimanish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025

Section 153CSection 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY,JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5866/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21) Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. JCIT, C/o C.S. Anand, Adv. Central Circle-1, B-81, First Floor (Part B), Vs. Delhi. Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110024. PAN-AAKCS6743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by ShriC.S. Anand, and Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advs. Department by ShriManish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: Both the appeals filed b…

Sri Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1076/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

…arises due to a delay in remittance of taxes deducted at source. It is well established that interest on statutory dues is compensatory in nature rather than penal. In several judicial pronouncements, including CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (2007) 294 ITR 599 (Raj.), it has been held that such interest expenses are allowable if they arise in the course of fulfilling statutory obligations of the assessee. . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page 9 of 20 14.4 Further the expenses on which TDS was deducted has not been doubted by the authorities therefore it is clear that such expenses incurred in connecti…

Sri Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1075/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

…arises due to a delay in remittance of taxes deducted at source. It is well established that interest on statutory dues is compensatory in nature rather than penal. In several judicial pronouncements, including CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (2007) 294 ITR 599 (Raj.), it has been held that such interest expenses are allowable if they arise in the course of fulfilling statutory obligations of the assessee. . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page 9 of 20 14.4 Further the expenses on which TDS was deducted has not been doubted by the authorities therefore it is clear that such expenses incurred in connecti…

DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…me-tax Act was being made while making the repayments of loans/deposits in cash. Thus, it was held by the Tribunal that no penalty under section 269T read with section 271E could be imposed and the penalty was cancelled. In the case of OMEC Engineers Vs. CIT (294 ITR 599), the assessee was a firm carrying on contract business. The assessee received Rs.20,000/- or more in cash from 11 persons between. February 14, 1993, and November 10, 1993, amounting to Rs.5 lakhs. The return filed by the assessee was, however, accepted under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. After the assessment was made, penalty proceeding…

DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…me-tax Act was being made while making the repayments of loans/deposits in cash. Thus, it was held by the Tribunal that no penalty under section 269T read with section 271E could be imposed and the penalty was cancelled. In the case of OMEC Engineers Vs. CIT (294 ITR 599), the assessee was a firm carrying on contract business. The assessee received Rs.20,000/- or more in cash from 11 persons between. February 14, 1993, and November 10, 1993, amounting to Rs.5 lakhs. The return filed by the assessee was, however, accepted under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. After the assessment was made, penalty proceeding…

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ITO-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 277/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.275 to 277/Ind/2023 (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15) RVR Technologies Ltd. ACIT 3(1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee…

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. Addl. CIT-Range-3, Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 276/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.275 to 277/Ind/2023 (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15) RVR Technologies Ltd. ACIT 3(1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee…

Rvr Technologies Ltd., Mandideep vs. ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 275/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.275 to 277/Ind/2023 (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2014-15) RVR Technologies Ltd. ACIT 3(1) Plot No.04, New Industrial Area Bhopal Vs. Mandideep (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AABCR5783R Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal, and N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These three appeals by assessee…

Bhalchandra P. Dalvi, Ghahtkopar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27 (1) (2), Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2492/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhalchandra P. Dalvi, Vs. Ito-Ward 27(1)(2), 1, Hemalaya Society, It-Office, Vashi Milind Nagar, Near Railway Station Sungrace English Building, School,Ghatkopar(W), Navimumbai-400705. Mumbai-400084. Pan/Gir No. : Aampd3092P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & Shri B.R.Vyas.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Ashokkumarambastha,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec271D & U/Sec250 Of The Act. 1. The Learned Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax 27(1) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271D Amounting To Rupees 24,50,000/- Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand As Well As Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Confirming The Same. Bhalachandra P. Dalvi.Mumbai. 2.1 The Appellant Has Received Rupees 18,50,000/- Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Cash Against Sale Of Flat & Rs.6,00,000/- Amount Raised From Lenders Which Amount Was Less Than Rupees Twenty Thousand Out Of Rupees Six Lakhs, Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Is Already Taxed As Income & Balance Loans Are Accepted As Genuine & Each Loans Less Than Rs.20,000/- Considering Above Facts & Circumstances No Penalty U/S 271D Can Be Levied & Same Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh R.Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri.AshokKumarAmbastha,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271D

…ses (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT, [2002] 80 ITD 484 12. Karnataka Ginning & Pressing factors Vs. JCIT, [2001] 77 ITD 478 (Mumbai) 13. CIT Vs. Speedways Rubber (P) Ltd, [2010] 326 ITR 31 14. Hindusthan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26. 15. OMEC Engineeris Vs. CIT, 294 ITR 599 16. CIT Vs. Mudhav Enterprises (P) Ltd, 356 ITR 588, Guj 8. We find that the assessing officer in the asseseement order U/sec143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act has made addition of cash loans below Rs.20,000/-each aggregating to Rs.6,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits u/sec 68 of the Act of Rs. 4,75,000/- and also initiated penalty U/sec271(1)(c) of…

Bhoom Reddy Komatireddy, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 652/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin. Sr. AR
Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…penalty. In this case, the court had accepted version given by the assessee that violation of the provisions of the Act was under a bona fide belief of the assessee and the same was not with any intention to avoid or evade, the tax. (iii) OMEC Engineers-v-CIT 294 ITR 599 (Jharkhand HO) -- The Hon'ble High Court after considering various decisions of SC held as follows: In the instant case, as noticed above, there is no finding of the assessing authority, the appellate authority or the Tribunal that the transaction made by the assessee in breach of the provisions of section 269SS was not a genuine transaction. On…

Sushila Bisht, Dehradun vs. Add. CIT Range-02, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3288/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Sushila Bisht, Vs. Addl Cit, Ajabpur Kalan, C-100, Shanti Range-02, Vihar, Phase-1, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajepb0822E

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sahani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parmod Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…he lender and none of the authorities found that the transaction was not genuine or that it was a sham transaction to cover up unaccounted money.” 6. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of OMEC Engineers Vs. CIT reported in 294 ITR 599. 7. It is also pertinent to note that in the instant case both the ld AO as well as the ld CIT(A) had duly agreed with the assessee that she had explained the source for purchase of immovable property beyond reasonable doubt. 8. We have gone through the quantum assessment order framed in the hands of the Assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act on 04.05.2…

Gopinath Kanduri, Kadapa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kadapa

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 219/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…e learned AR, this constitutes sufficient cause under section 273B of the Act and, therefore, no penalty shall be imposed in this case. Learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of OMEC Engineers vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 599, JCIT vs. BD Patel in Tax Appeal No. 1226/2009, DCIT vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav (2012 26 Taxmann.com 264 (Agra-Trib), CIT vs. Suneel Kumar Goyal (2000 and) 183 taxman 53 (Punjab and Haryana) and ACIT vs. Shreenathji Corpn(2015) 56 Taxmann.com 439 (Gujarat) and a host of decisions by the Tribunal in support of his contention. 6. Per contra, learned…

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range Moga, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…ty was justified in a case where:- (i) creditors are genuine and transactions not doubted (ii) there is no revenue loss to the exchequer, and (in) there is business exigency forcing the assessee to take cash loan. In the case of Omee Engineers Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 599, it was held that where there is no finding that transactions were not genuine and there is no malafide intention, the penalty could not be sustained in law. In the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirntan Udyog, (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj), it has been held that where a reasonable explanation is furnished, levy of penalty u/s 27 ID is not justified. Ba…

Shri Balbir Singh M/S Jaideep Gift Centre, Taptej Singh Market, Moga vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Moga Range, Moga

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…ty was justified in a case where:- (i) creditors are genuine and transactions not doubted (ii) there is no revenue loss to the exchequer, and (in) there is business exigency forcing the assessee to take cash loan. In the case of Omee Engineers Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 599, it was held that where there is no finding that transactions were not genuine and there is no malafide intention, the penalty could not be sustained in law. In the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirntan Udyog, (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj), it has been held that where a reasonable explanation is furnished, levy of penalty u/s 27 ID is not justified. Ba…

P. Kalaiselvi, Polur vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 984/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ !ायपीठ, चे$ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा"", एवं 'ी अ"ण खोडिपया, माननीय लेखा सद) के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 v. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [PAN: BCAPK 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar…

Anuradha Chivukula Challa, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Range-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(It)A No.585/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa The Additional Commissioner No.12, Seshu, 12Th Cross Of Income-Tax, International V. Indiranagar 1St Stage Taxation, Range – 1 Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore. Pan : Bgapc8765M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 08.06.2022. The Order Of The Cit(A) Arises Out Of The Order Of A.O. Imposing Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017- 2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…5/Bang/2022 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa. the said sale transaction. Hence, there is `reasonable cause’ as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act on facts of the instant case. The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of OMEC Engineers v. CIT reported in (2007) 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) had deleted the penalty by considering the urgency of the assessee to make payment, who had borrowed money in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court reads as follows:- “22. The words " reasonable cause" have not been defined under the Act but they could receive the same inte…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…34 ITR (Trib) 0157 • DCIT v. Chetan M Kakaria reported in [2014] 032 ITR (Trib) 0024 • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Addl. CIT reported in [2010] 001 ITR (Trib) 0165 • CIT v. Balaji Traders reported in 303 ITR 312 (Mad) • OMEC Engineers v. CIT reported in 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) • CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., reported in 285 ITR 221 (Mad) • Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A B Shanthi reported in [2002] 255 ITR 0258 (SC) 18. The Appellant was prevented by reasonable cause and therefore pursuant to section 273B of the Act no penalty can be levied on the facts and circumstances of the case.…

Ingersoll-Rand (India) Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax 1

In the result, the appeals are

ITA/6/2011HC Karnataka11 Mar 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 260A

…sioner of 13 Income Tax (Appeals) that club membership are to be allowed in deduction and accordingly, the aforesaid deduction was permitted. However, the Tribunal followed the decision in case of ‘FRAMATONE CONNECTOR OEN LTD. VS. DCIT’, (2007) 294 ITR 599 and held the same to be a capital expenditure. However, the Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that its order passed in CIT AND ANOTHER VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., by which it had held that the club membership expenditure was in the nature of revenue expenditure was upheld by division bench of this court vide dated 21.10.2011,…

The ITO, Ward -1, Surat vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 612/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.612/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik, Ward-1, Bardoli. Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Madhi, Tal.Bardoli, Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aadas 5644 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shaunak Zaveri– Ca & Shri Yogesh Gamit - Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 274

…n such case the default on the part of the assessee is merely of a technical or venial nature and no penalty be levied. Reliance is placed on following case low:- 1) CIT V/s Bombay Conductor Electricals (2008) 301 ITR 238 Guj. 2) Omec Engineers V/s CIT (2007) 294 ITR 599, Jharkhand 3) Farrukhbad Investment (I) ltd. V/s JCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 82.ITAT Delhi 4) DIT (Exemption) V/s All India Deaf and Dumb Society 2005 198 CTR Del 376. 5) CIT V/s Maheshwari Nirman Udhyog 2007 211 CTR (Raj) 8.5 To sum up, a harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of s:s, 271D; 27IE and 273B clearly reveals the use of expression…

OMEC Engineers v. CIT (294 ITR 599) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax