Section 50 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.74

Section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 74 (Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 74 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 50 is CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (281 ITR 210), cited in 88 of the 392 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 50

CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.
281 ITR 210 · 2005 · High Court
88
citing judgments

The deeming fiction in Section 50, which treats capital gains from depreciable assets as short-term, applies only for the purpose of computing capital gains under that section. For other provisions, such as set-off of losses under Section 74 or deductions under Section 54E/54EC, the asset's original character (long-term or short-term) is to be considered.

CIT, Panji v. Dempo Company Limited
74 Taxmann.com 15 · 2016 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

The 20% tax rate under Section 112 applies to capital gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if it is deemed a short-term capital gain under Section 50, provided the asset was held for more than 36 months. The fiction created by Section 50 for treating such gains as short-term does not alter the long-term nature of the asset for applying the tax rate under Section 112.

Harshad J.Choksi v. CIT, Bombay City- VII
25 Taxmann.com 567 · 2012 · High Court
31
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.

Jackie Shroff v. ACIT, Range 16(1)
101 Taxmann.com 455 · 2019 · ITAT
28
citing judgments

An assessee can claim an outstanding balance as a business loss under Section 28 if it arises from regular business transactions, even if conditions for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) are not met, provided sufficient evidence is produced.

CIT v. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd.
387 ITR 354 · 2016 · Supreme Court
18
citing judgments

Section 54E deduction is allowable against capital gains assessable under section 50 on depreciable assets. For other provisions, the asset remains a long-term capital asset despite being treated as short-term for section 50.

Dy. CIT v. Mastek Ltd.
25 Taxmann.com 133 · 2012 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Expenditure on scientific research for weighted deduction must satisfy the conditions in section 35(2AB) and also the provisions of section 35(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. v. ACIT
335 ITR 77 · 2011 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Land classified as agricultural by the District Collector is considered agricultural land for tax purposes, regardless of the owner's intention to use it for industrial purposes or the absence of agricultural operations.

Director of Income Tax v. Administrator of the Estate of Late Mr. E.F. Dinshaw
218 Taxmann 125 · 2013 · High Court
10
citing judgments
CIT v. Accel Transmatic Systems Ltd.
230 CTR 206 · 2010 · High Court
9
citing judgments
CIT v. Sakthi Metal Depot
333 ITR 492 · 2011 · High Court
9
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 50

Neelam Mukesh Kumar Patel Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 24 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6025/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6025/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Neelam Mukesh Kumar Patel The Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(3)(1) B-34, Utkarsh Chs Ltd., Bldg Vs. R. No. 415, 4Th Floor, Piramal No.5, Mahakali Caves Road, Chambers Lal Baug Patel Andheri East, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Awlpp3401F अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-36/It-222/Ito-24(3)(1)/2017-18 Vide Dated 28.06.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(3)(1) Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 15.12.2017 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. I Have Heard The Learned Sr. Departmental Representative & Gone Through The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. During The Course Of 2 Neelam Mukesh Kumar Patel; Ay 10 -11 Hearing The Registry Has Placed A Letter Dated 11Th August, 2021, The Context Of The Letter Read As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 50

Thar Heat Transfer Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 50