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

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B