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

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. N.S Guzder & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 239/MUM/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.239/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit Central Circle-2(3) बिधम/ M/S. N.S. Guzder & Co. Ltd. Room No. 804, 8Th Floor, Neville House, Currimbhoy, Vs. Old Cgo Building, Annex Road, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400038. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn1223F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Sr Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Sunil S. Jhunjhunwala सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.10.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2004- 05. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Gain Arising From Sale Of Property Namely El-Cid Flat Was Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs.1,42,40,336/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Claimed Depreciation On This A.Y.2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Sunil SFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Sr AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32

Dcitcc 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Hrishikesh D. Pai, Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2766/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 50Section 54FSection 69B

Guju Ads P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4002/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4002/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Guju Ads Pvt. Ltd. Gr. बिधम/ Cit(A)-24 Mumbai No. Floor, Mirani Nagar, Ganesh Cit(A)-22/Dcit-10(3)/It- Vs. Gawde Road, Mulund West, 175/2013-14. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg7965M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Arju Garauria ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri Bhaumik Goda (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.03.2016, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 8. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Interest Of Natural Justice Matter Be Remanded Back To Learned Assessing Officer For Assessment De Novo Given That Authorized Representative Did Not Appear Before Learned Assessing Officer & Learned Cit(A) In Absence Of Assessee Knowledge.

For Appellant: Shri Bhaumik Goda (AR)For Respondent: Shri Arju Garauria ( DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50Section 50C