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

M/S. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ITO 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 152/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 2Section 50BSection 50C

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd

ITA/238/2012HC Kerala06 Dec 2018
For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD
Section 115JSection 37Section 50B

Vip Clothing Limited, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 2889/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2889/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vip Clothing Ltd. (Formerly बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Known As Maxwell Vs. Industries Ltd.) Plaza, Near Mohan Pride, Vip Compound, Kon Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Village, Bhiwandi-Kalyan Kalyan(W). Road, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane, Pin-421302 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm1549A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( Dr) Assessee By: Subodh L. Ratnaparkhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Aurangabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirm. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Subodh L. RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50B

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., Kochi

ITA/1776/2009HC Kerala17 Sept 2018

Bench: The Tribunal. The Appeals Of The Revenue Were Dismissed & That Of The Assessee Was Allowed Hence The Two Appeals Here. There Was Also An Appeal From The Order Of The Commissioner

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 263

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd

ITA/16/2013HC Kerala17 Sept 2018

Bench: The Tribunal. The Appeals Of The Revenue Were Dismissed & That Of The Assessee Was Allowed Hence The Two Appeals Here. There Was Also An Appeal From The Order Of The Commissioner

For Appellant: M/S. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTDFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 263

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Nilgiri Tea Estates Limited

ITA/101/2012HC Kerala17 Sept 2018

Bench: The Tribunal. The Appeals Of The Revenue Were Dismissed & That Of The Assessee Was Allowed Hence The Two Appeals Here. There Was Also An Appeal From The Order Of The Commissioner

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S. NILGIRI TEA ESTATES LIMITED
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 263

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd

ITA/1782/2009HC Kerala17 Sept 2018

Bench: The Tribunal. The Appeals Of The Revenue Were Dismissed & That Of The Assessee Was Allowed Hence The Two Appeals Here. There Was Also An Appeal From The Order Of The Commissioner

For Appellant: HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTDFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 263

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Nilgiri Tea Estates Ltd

ITA/213/2014HC Kerala17 Sept 2018

Bench: The Tribunal. The Appeals Of The Revenue Were Dismissed & That Of The Assessee Was Allowed Hence The Two Appeals Here. There Was Also An Appeal From The Order Of The Commissioner

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S NILGIRI TEA ESTATES LTD
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 263

Shri Balaji Industries Complex, Badaun vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2775/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Balaji Industries Complex, Cit, Ismailpur, Moradabad-244001 Vs Badaun. (Pan: Abefs3007Q) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Department By: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2018

For Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 50C

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 805/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Gujarat Flurochemicals Limited., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2744/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Datex Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Smt. Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 47

Prudential Process Management Services India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1274/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1274/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Co No. 102/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2131/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prudential Process Management The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Services India Private Limited, Tax, Range-10(3), बनाम/ Prudential Centre Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Prudential Process Management Tax, Range-10(3), Services India Private Limited, बनाम/ Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Prudential Centre Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400 020 Powai, Mumbai-400 076 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 7204 Q (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Percy J. Pardiwala/ Assessee By Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Jayant Kumar/ Shri V. Jenardhanan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.12.2017 & 23.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar/
Section 143(3)Section 50BSection 92C

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Rasa Agrotech Pvt.Ltd., Sec'Bad, Secunderabad

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal as well as

ITA 730/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Cit, Circle-3(1), Vs. M/S. Rasa Agrotech Pvt Hyderabad. Ltd, Secunderabad.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. U. Minichandran
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 50B

Navabharat Enterprises Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee-company is treated as allowed

ITA 874/HYD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri N. VenkataramFor Respondent: Smt. Dr. Divya K.J - DR
Section 147Section 41(1)Section 50(1)Section 50BSection 51B

Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 3537/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkataraman, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 14A

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 3298/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkataraman, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 14A

Areva T & D Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 668/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Areva T & D India Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 561/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1112/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92D