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 366,339 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

Monarch Dyestuff Industries & Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 397/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 274

…enalty under section 271D and imposed penalty of Rs.19.90 lakhs which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). The Tribunal has deleted the penalty. The Tribunal put reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of OMEC Engineers Vs. CIT, 294 ITR 599. The Hon’ble High Court ITA No.397 and 398/Ahd/2016 14 observed that if transaction is genuine the penalty under section 271D would not be imposed. 18. Next decision referred by the ld.counsel for the assessee is ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Maruti Nandan Finance Cap. P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 114 TTJ 142 (Ahd). In this case cheque of Rs.10 lakh…

Deepak Kumar Sahoo, Balasore vs. JCIT, Balasore Range, Balasore

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

ITA 115/CTK/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 274

…e payments as violation of provisions of section 269T of the Act and, accordingly confirmed the penalty of Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of OMEC Engineers vs CIT, 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that there being no finding of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) or the Tribunal that the transaction made by the assessee in breach of provisions of section 269SS was not a genuine transaction, penalty u/s.271D is not leviable merely for technical mistake. He submitted that similarly i…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Kavita Behal, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6529/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Saxena & Sh. Devinder KFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) [ 2008] 304 ITR 172 (Raj.) – Rajasthan High Court. (l) DCIT vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav [2012] 26 taxmann.com 264 (Agra Tribunal) (m) Bright Play Centre vs. Addl. CIT 2011-TIOL-712-ITAT- AHM (n) OMEC Engineers vs. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) (o) CIT vs. T. Perumal (Indl.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad.) (p) CIT vs. Speedways Rubber Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 31 (P&H). 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities as well as the case laws cited by both the parties. I find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elab…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Kavita Behal, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6528/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Saxena & Sh. Devinder KFor Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…vs. Lokhpat Film Exchange (Cinema) [ 2008] 304 ITR 172 (Raj.) – Rajasthan High Court. (l) DCIT vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav [2012] 26 taxmann.com 264 (Agra Tribunal) (m) Bright Play Centre vs. Addl. CIT 2011-TIOL-712-ITAT- AHM (n) OMEC Engineers vs. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) (o) CIT vs. T. Perumal (Indl.) [2015] 370 ITR 313 (Mad.) (p) CIT vs. Speedways Rubber Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 31 (P&H). 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities as well as the case laws cited by both the parties. I find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elab…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cadbury India Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/1397/2008HC Delhi28 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 271C

…ITA Nos.1397/2008, 1398/2008 and 429/2009 Page 1 of 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos.1397/2008, 1398/2008 and 429/2009 % Date of Decision : 28th March, 2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVII AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DISTT. CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI … APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. Versus CADBURY INDIA LIMITED, NORTHERN REGION OFFICE, C-2, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, NEW DELHI ... RESPONDENT Through : Mr. Satyen Sethi and Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates.…