Section 50B of the Income Tax Act

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
36
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
21
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
19
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
14
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
9
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 50B

T vs. Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2614/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Tvs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Acit -2(3)(1) B-106, 10Th Floor, B-Wing Mumbai Vs. Mittal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400001

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sanghvi & Shri Ujjval GangwalFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Kashyap CIT DR
Section 3Section 48Section 50B

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Vijayshree Fats & Oil Products Private Limited, Raipur

ITA 49/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Rpr/2018 Co No.02/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Vijayshree Fats & Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcv2584Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 50BSection 50C

Sekhri Brothers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5508/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Sekhri Brothers Vs. Acit, Circle-49(1) B-57/4, New Delhi. Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan Aamfs1085R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148

Pricol Engineering Industries Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT Corporate Circel 2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1049/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 5Section 50B

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 9, Mumbai vs. M/S.Atc Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited(Formerly Known As Viom Networks Limited), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 6366/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 40Section 43(1)

M/S Mhm Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12, Bangalore

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

ITA 372/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Mhm Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Range - 12 Bengaluru No. 52, Bassappa Road Shantinagar Bengaluru 560027 Pan – Aabcm6614L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Parthasarathi, Adv. Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarathi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 50B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

Section 2Section 37Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B

Mwh India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1891/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 1891/मुं/2014 ("न. व. 2009-10 ) Mwh India Pvt. Ltd. 168, Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Goregaon(E) Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Aaaca-4613-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 9(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D.Mistri With Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj Sheth ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistri with Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 50BSection 92C

Asst CIT Cir 4, Thane vs. Palghar Land Development Corporation, Vasai

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6812/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6812/मुं/2016 ("न.व. 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -4, Thane, 6Th Floor, A-Wing, Room No.2, Ashar I.T.Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16Z, Thane (W). ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Palghar Land Development Corporation, Dewan Tower, Station Road, Navghar, Vasai . Pan: Aabfp-5145-J ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23/08/2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Findings Of Cit(A) On Two Grounds. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder SindhuFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 50B

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Mysuru vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Limited, Mysuru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2551/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2Section 288Section 35ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 48Section 49Section 50B

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai
Section 170Section 2(42)Section 2(42)(C)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 50BSection 5O

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Electronica Machine Tools Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 10/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50BSection 90

Electronica Machine Tools Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2937/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50BSection 90

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 50B

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Ltd

ITAT/39/2020HC Calcutta17 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 194HSection 195Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 40Section 50BSection 9(1)

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Huclin Research Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1238/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1238/Chny/2019 & C.O.No.97/Chny/2019 [In Ita No.1238/Chny/2019] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs M/S. Huclin Research Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), 42, Jamal Sonu Terrace Loganathan Nagar,1St Street Corporate Circle-2(2) 512, Wanaparthy Block 100 Ft.Road, Choolaimedu Chennai-34. Chennai-600 094. Pan: Aabch 6465L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector)

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: 06.01.2022
Section 50B

Jasper Auto Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 705/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Jasper Auto Services Pvt. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccb 0196P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 50BSection 5O

Vijay Mohan Harde, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 588/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.588/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50B