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

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S Avery (India) Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 980/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.980/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Dcit, Circle-1, Kolkata, Vs. M/S Avery (India) Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, 28/2, Waterloo Street, P-7, Chowranghiee Square, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-69 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 4694 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Assessee By : Shri Manish Sheth, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xx, Kolkata, In Appeal No.85/Cit(A)-Xx/Circle-1/2011-12/Kol, Dated 16.01.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.3,88,68,115/-.The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1). Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Addition On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.65,81,000/-. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee’S Claim In Respect Of Surrender Of Tenancy Rights Is Not Accepted Because As Per M/S Avery (India) Ltd. Section 43(6) Of The Act, Written Down Value Of A Particular Block Of Assets

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43Section 43(6)Section 50

Aegis Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee,in part

ITA 2671/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/2671/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07 Aegis Logistics Limited Acit, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaaca 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनु सार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा अनुसार लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनु अनु सार सार Challenging The Order,Dated 15/12/2010, Of The Cit (A)-1 Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Chemicals,Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/11/2006,Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs. 14.75 Crores.A Revised Return Was Filed On 28/03/2008 Reducing The Long-Term Capital Loss From The Returned Income.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment,U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 29/12/2008, Determin - Ing Its Income At Rs. 14. 85 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A