Which cases are most cited on Section 50B?

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. (227 ITR 260) — 36 citing judgments; CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Corn. (Land Department) (57 ITR 299) — 21 citing judgments; TUV India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (110 Taxmann.com 175) — 19 citing judgments; Ld. PCIT v. Vedanta Limited (102 Taxmann.com 95) — 14 citing judgments; M/s. EDAC Engineering Limited v. DCIT (141 ITD 231) — 9 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 50B?

BharatTax indexes 148 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 50B of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 50B of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. (227 ITR 260) is the decision most relied on for Section 50B, cited in 36 judgments. In a slump sale, the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned among individual assets for claiming depreciation, as there is no indication of the price attributable to specific assets out of the total sale consideration.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.77

Section 50B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 77 (Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of slump sale) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 77 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 50B is CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. (227 ITR 260), cited in 36 of the 148 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 50B

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co.

227 ITR 260 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

In a slump sale, the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned among individual assets for claiming depreciation, as there is no indication of the price attributable to specific assets out of the total sale consideration.

CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Corn. (Land Department)

57 ITR 299 · 1965 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

In a slump sale of a business undertaking, the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned amongst individual assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation if no item-wise value was assigned in the purchase agreement.

TUV India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

110 Taxmann.com 175 · 2019 · ITAT

citing judgments

Addition should not be made when tax authorities fail to conduct inquiries with TDS deductors regarding discrepancies between Form 26AS and books of account, despite having the information and opportunity. Disallowance of expenses is arbitrary and against the rule of law if made without rejecting books of account or identifying specific discrepancies.

Ld. PCIT v. Vedanta Limited

102 Taxmann.com 95 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record dissatisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim for expenditure to earn exempt income before invoking Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.

M/s. EDAC Engineering Limited v. DCIT

141 ITD 231 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 50B

DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi vs. Savista Global Solutions Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1729/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: AABCN9158L

Section 143(3)Section 50BSection 50B(3)

R.S.Jhaveri & Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle–1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 2441/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mayank PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

R.S.Jhaveri & Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle–1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 2440/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mayank PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

ITO, Mumbai vs. Suresh Amrutrao Chavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5305/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2026

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pawan Singh ()

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 50B

Dosch Pharmaceutucals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 2088/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physicalhearing) Dosch Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 1(3)(1), Mumbai 15-C, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Vs Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Link Road, Andheri West, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400053. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aaacd2320F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Jose Pulekkoden, Advocate, Ms. Nidhi N. Jain, Advocate & Noor Jahan Sheikh Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan,Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 13.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)Dated 31.12.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming 1 The Addition Of Rs. 14,26,898 Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 37(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Impugned Amount Pertains To Slump Sale Consideration Offered To Tax Under 2 Section 50B Under The Head Capital Gains & Therefore The Provisions Of Section 37(1), Which Apply Only To Computation Of Business Income Under Sections 28 To 44, Are Not Applicable. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law In Not Adjudicating The Specific Legal Ground Raised By The Appellant Regarding The Inapplicability Of Section 37(1), Thereby Rendering The Order Bad In Law & Liable To Be Set Aside. 4. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That Section 29 Mandates That Deductions Under Sections 30 To 43D (Including 4 Section 37) Are Applicable

Section 254(1)Section 29Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 50B

Ganesh Ramrao Kenjale, Pune vs. ITO Ward -3(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3173/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Ganesh Ramrao Kenjale, Income Tax Officer, 115/6, A3 Saket Co-Op Hsg. Soc. Ward-3(3), Shivtirth Nagar, Vs. Pmt Building Commercial Near Sutar Parth, Complex, Paud Road, Shankar Sheth Road, Pune-411038. Swargate, Pan : Ajopk5600P Pune-411037. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Adv. Shivangi Gautam & Abhijeet Tupe Department By : Shri Mukul Kulkarni (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 09-04-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-06-2026 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, J.M.:

For Appellant: Adv. Shivangi Gautam &For Respondent: Shri Mukul Kulkarni

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd., New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 810/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 May 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 810/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Escorts Heart Institute & Vs The Acit, Research Centre Ltd. Circle 2(1), Okhla Road, New Delhi. Chandigarh. "ायी लेखा सं/.Pan No: Aaace8731F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 1607/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Acit, Vs Escorts Heart Institute & Circle 7(1), Research Centre Ltd. Chandigarh. Sco 56-58, Opd City Centre, Sector 9, Chandigarh. "ायी लेखा सं/.Pan No: Aaace8731F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Simran Mehta, Shri R.M.Mehta, Advocates Shri N.L.Gandhi, G.M. Finance Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2026 Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In The

For Appellant: Shri Simran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 50BSection 50B(3)

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1607/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 May 2026AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Simran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 50BSection 50B(3)

DCIT -CC- 1 (4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Formerly Indian Rayon Industries Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1513/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethaditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Aditya Birla Road, Mumbai-400 020. Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400 030. Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Room Vs. Grasim Industries Limited (Successor No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, To Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited Formerly M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Known As Indian Rayon Industries Ltd.), Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400 030. Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yogesh Thar, Ms. Sukanya Jayaram & Shri Riken Shah Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat Date Of Hearing 04.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 14ASection 250Section 32ASection 40Section 50BSection 80Section 801ASection 92

M/S. Grasim Industries Limited ( As Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. ), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1112/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2026AY 2014-15

Section 14ASection 250Section 32ASection 40Section 50BSection 80Section 801ASection 92

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Valvaya Capital Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 9122/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarasst. Cit-14(1)(2) Valvaya Capital Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Shop No. 14, Lovely Home Chs Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Ltd., Church Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 029 Pan/Gir No. Aabce 8567 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Reepal Trashawala Respondent By : Shri Nayanjyoti Nath Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department, Against Order Dated 27.10.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Sole Issue Arising In The Present Appeal Relates To Reduction Of An Amount Of Rs.5,70,31,124/-, Being Capital Work-In-Progress, While Computing The Capital Gain U/S. 50B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short).

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TrashawalaFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath

Section 115JSection 50B

M/S. Bank of American, N.A, Mumbai vs. The Jt DIT (I.T)3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

The Dy DIT (I.T) 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of America N.A., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. Manipal Education and Medical Group India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2148/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Manipal Education & Medical Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Group India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.24/1, 15Th Floor, Jw Marriott, Vittal Central Circle – 1(2), Mallya Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan: Aadcm 8103 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Manipal Education and Medical Group India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 2010/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Maersk Tankers India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 8376/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92B(2)Section 92C

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodara, Vadodara vs. M/S. Inox Wind Energy Limited, Vadodara

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

ITA 654/AHD/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.654/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Inox Wind Energy Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Limited, V/S. Circle-1(1)(1), Abs Tower S. No.1837 & Vadodara. 1834, Op Road, Vadodara-390007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafc14628K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 27.01.2025, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], On 18.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. Dcit Vs. Inox Wind Energy Limited Assessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Ledvance Private Limted, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Delhi

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

ITA 540/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 234Section 50BSection 92(3)Section 92C(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited, Chitoor

ITA 2298/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 50Section 50B