How many judgments discuss Section 50(2)?

BharatTax indexes 16 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 50(2) (Section 50(2)).

“Section 50(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 50Section 50(2)16 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 50(2) is Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others in CWP No. 15506 of 2013; Shri Puneet Singh vs. CIT (110 Taxmann.com 116), cited in 83 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 50(2)

Shri Manjeet Singh HUF v. UOI & Others in CWP No. 15506 of 2013; Shri Puneet Singh vs. CIT

110 Taxmann.com 116 · 2019 · Reported

citing judgments

Interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation from compulsory acquisition of land is taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' in the year of receipt, as per the amended provisions, with a 50% deduction available under section 57(iv).

CIT v. Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

379 ITR 50 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

When the High Court admits a substantial question of law concerning an assessee's claim or alleged default, it indicates the assessee's bona fides, thereby preventing the imposition of penalties under sections 271(1)(c) or 271C. The mere disallowance of a claim or an addition by revenue authorities does not automatically lead to a penalty if the issue is debatable and pending appeal.

Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India

3 SCR 9 · 1971 · Reported

citing judgments

A word, clause, or sentence from a court judgment, when taken out of context, does not represent a complete exposition of the law on a question that the judgment did not explicitly address.

CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd.

262 ITR 587 · 2003 · High Court

citing judgments

The fiction created by Section 50(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only to the computation of capital gains under Sections 48 and 49, and not to other provisions. Section 54E is available for exemption irrespective of whether the asset is depreciable or not.

50%. (ii) Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

62 Taxmann.com 181 · 2015 · ITAT

citing judgments

A commission of 0.50% charged by a parent company for a corporate guarantee is considered to be at Arm's Length Price (ALP). This rate is used for adjustments in transfer pricing.

UPS SCS Asia Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT, (International Taxation)

50 SOT 268 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

Managerial services require both planning and execution; mere execution of directions from another party does not qualify as managerial services.

Lucknow) Relaxo Footwear Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

50 SOT 102 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

Section 14A aims to prevent the claiming of deductions for expenses incurred in relation to tax-exempt income, and a narrow interpretation that defeats this purpose is incorrect. The concept of 'real income' must be considered, as taxation of 'notional income' is not permissible.

Harshad J.Choksi v. CIT, Bombay City- VII

25 Taxmann.com 567 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

The conditions for claiming a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) are not fulfilled if the assessee fails to provide details of the parties associated with the debts or evidence that these amounts were offered to tax in earlier years. An alternate claim for loss under Section 28 is denied without evidence substantiating the loss in the relevant assessment year.

Judgments citing Section 50(2)

Rakesh Agarwal, Aligarh vs. PCIT Agra-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

between the actual consideration paid and the FMV being less than 10% will have to be ignored for applying the provisions of Section 50(2)(vii) in the case of the assessee. Therefore, in the given facts of the case, the view of the Ld. PCIT is not supported

Mamta Agarwal, Aligarh vs. PCIT Agra-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 204/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Mdr Cranes & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

considered view that it cannot be allowed as an expenditure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act as per section 50(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Ld.AR, thereby sustain the addition made by the Ld.AO. Accordingly, the ground raised

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

Section 50(1) deals with the cases where any block of depreciable assets do not cease to exist on account of transfer and Section 50(2) deals with cases where the block of depreciable assets cease to exist in that block on account of transfer during the previous year ... present case, on transfer of depreciable capital asset the entire block of assets has ceased to exist and, therefore, Section 50(2) is attracted. The effect of Section 50(2) is that where the consideration received on transfer of all the depreciable assets in the block exceeds the written down

ACIT Central Circle 7 4, Mumbai vs. Zytex Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri, Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 50(2)Section 50B

statutory criteria of an "undertaking" under Section 2(42C) and thereby rendering Section 50B inapplicable. Consequently, the transaction should have been classified under Section 50(2) as Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG) arising from the cessation of a "block of assets." 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances ... same has been done to evade taxes. In view of the above, it is evident that the aforesaid transaction squarely falls under section 50(2) of the IT Act, 1961”. 8.4.4. I find that the reasons recorded do not bring out any new facts which were not earlier available with

Smt Sushama Rajesh Rao, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 234BSection 250Section 49Section 50(2)Section 50C

property, the valuation of the property ought to have been referred to a Valuation Officer in accordance with the provisions of section 50(2) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in assessing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vadodara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1655/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri RushinFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 50(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Gujarat State Electricity Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1598/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri RushinFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 50(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Gujarat State Electricity Corpn. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1597/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri RushinFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 50(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Chaitanya

Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

ACIT 421 Mumbai, Mumbai City vs. Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the

ITA 1022/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

Hirak Sarkar, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Cir. 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 892/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld Cit(Appeals) As His Mother Was Not Well Because Of Prolonged Disease Was Going Under Medical Supervision And

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the law and has proceeded to make additions without making reference to DVO as mandated by section 50(2) of the Act. Therefore, the alleged addition made by the AO cannot be justified. Similarly, while doing so, the Ld. AO also made

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad vs. Rahmathunnisa Begum, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 239/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.239/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Rahmathunnisa Ward 7(1) Begum, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Chfpb7761R (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devadas, Ca With Shri Shabbir Ali Khan (Assessee) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devadas, CA with Shri Shabbir Ali KhanFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 142ASection 250Section 251(1)Section 50(2)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal reported in 372 ITR 83 and also in the case of Smt. P. Sugandha and the provision of section 50(2) of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record

Palco Tex Fab Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 19(2)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 992/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43(6)Section 50

written down value’ together with Explanation-4 and Explanation to section 41(4) of the Act. The assessee also explained the provisions of section 50(2), section 2(47) together with Explanation 1 and 2 thereon of the Act before the ld.CIT(A). By the aforesaid factual and legal submissions

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Transport and Travels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar

Section 143(3)

year (excluding spare parts of Rs.65,10,284/- and equipment of 30,28,80,078 R.3,73,438/-) Capital gains as per section 50(2) of the Act 19,09,32,707 15. The helicopter was purchased on 31.10.2006 and the same was sold on 25.03.2013 and, therefore, the period ... holding was more than 3 years. Since the block became Nil, the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Act was attracted and the deeming provision of Section 50 of the Act are applicable with respect to computation of capital gains and it does not convert the long term capital

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. Eastman Industries Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 895 / 2007HC Delhi16 Sept 2008

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha

Section 260ASection 50Section 50(2)

that no short-term capital gain on transfer or block of assets could be taxed in the present case? d. Whether provisions of Section 50(2) are attracted in the present case so as to tax short-term capital gain on transfer of block of assets ... view that the “block of assets” on which depreciation was allowed @ 10% had ceased to exist and hence, under the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act, the entire surplus amount received by the Assessee on the sale of the aforesaid office premises would be liable to „short term