What is K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT authority for?

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

How many judgments cite K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT?

241 judgments on BharatTax cite K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT (265 ITR 562), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 154, Section 43A, Section 80IB.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT (265 ITR 562)

ACIT, AGRA vs. SAURABH GUPTA, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 167/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Section 115Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 269TSection 271ESection 292CSection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Vs. Saurabh Gupta, A-185/4, Kamla Aayakar Bhawan, Nagar, Agra-282005 Sanjay Place, Agra- 282002 PAN : AEBPG3309K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr DR Date of hearing 22.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.04.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. The appellant revenue has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 passed in Appeal No CIT(A)- IV/KNP/12141/2…

JCIT(OSD), BATHINDA vs. GANESH RICE MILLS, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 251/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Written submission)

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 251/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 J.C.I.T. (OSD), Vs. Ganesh Rice Mills, Bathinda Room No. 213, FF, CR Building, Income Tax Office, Civil Line, Punjab 151001 [PAN: AACFG 1896J] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : None (Written submission) : Respondent by Sh. Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06 . 04 .2026 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the revenu…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, PANCHMAHAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 279/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43A

…rt in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that mere making of an unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Builders & Another vs. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) has held that when the addition itself does not survive or the foundation for penalty is removed, the penalty must be deleted. Considering that substantial quantum relief was granted and the remaining issues are clearly debatable, the ratio of these judgments fully applies. 5.6. In view of the above facts and judicial principles, since the r…

ACIT, AGRA vs. SAURABH GUPTA, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue, ITA No

ITA 166/AGR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 271ESection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 165 & 166/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIT, Central Circle, Vs. Saurabh Gupta, A-185/4, Kamla Agra. Nagar, Agra. PAN :AEBPG3309K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 18.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 15.01.2026 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both these appeals have been preferred by Revenue against two separate impugned orders each dated 24.01.20…

ACIT, AGRA vs. SAURABH GUPTA, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue, ITA No

ITA 165/AGR/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 271ESection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 165 & 166/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIT, Central Circle, Vs. Saurabh Gupta, A-185/4, Kamla Agra. Nagar, Agra. PAN :AEBPG3309K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Sh. R.P. Maurya, CIT (A)-1/DR Date of hearing 18.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 15.01.2026 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both these appeals have been preferred by Revenue against two separate impugned orders each dated 24.01.20…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…ssessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is thus submitted that in absence of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; no penalty is leviable on the assessor u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 265 ITR 562 (SC) K.C. Builders v. ACIT ii) 291 ITR 519 (SC) Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT "43. The expression "conceal" is of great importance. According to Law Lexicon, the word "conceal" means: "to hide or keep secret. The word "conceal" is conceal are which implies to hide. It means to hide or withdraw from observation; to cover or keep from sight, to preven…

LAXMIBEN NARAYAN CHAUTE,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.357/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Laxmiben Narayan Chaute Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(3), बनाम/ Plot No.2, Ambica Society 2, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs. Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpc 0082 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Manish J Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…, is deleted, they remains no basis at all for levying the penalty and, therefore, in such a case no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.C.Builders vs. ACIT, 265 ITR 562 (SC). Hence, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 17/11/2025 in the open court. (SUCHITRA R KAMBLE) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) "याियक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सूरत /Surat…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 23 2 6 , MUMBAI vs. MANMOHAN DAULAL RATHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5467/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…son, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. On the other hand, it\nwas submitted that once the quantum appeal has been decided in favour\nof the assessee and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of K. C. Builder & another urs. ACIT 265 ITR 562, the\nLd. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the penalty and decided the appeal in\nfavour of the assessee. Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the order of\nHon'ble ITAT in quantum appeal bearing ITA No. 868/Mum/2024 for\nAY 2010-11 dated 24.03.2025 in assessee's own case, wherein the\nadditions confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) were deleted and appeal of the\nass…

ANTHONYMUTHU UDAYAR XAVIER,SIVAGANGA vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARAIKUDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1943/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

…, it is advisable to initiate prosecution under section 276C(1) only after confirmation of concealment penalty by the ITAT. xx xx xx xx" 22. The said guideline was based on a judgment of K.C. Builders v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2004] 186 CTR 721/265 ITR 562/135 Taxman 461 (SC)/(2004) 2 SCC 731, wherein this Court laid down that if penalty for concealment fails, the initiation of the prosecution on the basis of the same material also fails, therefore, it was advised that after confirmation of concealment of penalty by ITAT, the prosecution may be lodged in terms as specified in the above circular dat…

VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)

Crl.A. No.-003777-003779 - 2025Supreme Court28 Aug 2025

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.Ii), Egmore, Chennai, For The Offence Under Section 276C(1)2 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short “It Act”) For Assessment Year 2017- 1 High Court Of Judicature At Madras. 2 Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, Etc. 1 Digitally Signed By Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.08.28 20:56:48 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 245Section 245CSection 245D(4)Section 276C(1)Section 279(1)Section 482

…tiation of the prosecution on the basis of the same material also fails, therefore, it was advised that after confirmation of concealment of penalty by ITAT, the prosecution may be lodged in terms as specified in the above circular dated 24.04.2008. 9 (2004) 2 SCC 731 21 23. Similarly, on 09.09.2019, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short “CBDT”) in exercise of power under Section 119 of IT Act issued clarification qua the criteria to be followed for launching prosecution in respect of certain categories of offence under the IT Act, including Section 276C(1). The relevant portion is referred as…

MITHILESH SHUKLA, EXEMPTION CIRCLE GHAZIABAD vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1223/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 28-03-2019 allowed the appeal against which the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. PCIT passed the order under Section 263 and gave the direction to the AO, and the AO completed the assessment on 27.12.2017. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Declining the contention raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to levy the penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act.

Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…rightly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty. Accordingly, in these circumstances the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT 265 ITR 562 (SC) because "when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled." So, in view of the matter, the appeal filed by the revenu…