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

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sella Synergy India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 557/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Smt. Parminder Kaur, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 5OSection 92C

Banca Sella S.P.A. Chennai Branch (It Division), Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 417/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Smt. Parminder Kaur, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 5OSection 92C

Sella Synergy India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 398/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Smt. Parminder Kaur, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 5OSection 92C

Shri Mahesh K. Dhirmalani, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT Cen RG, Thane

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

ITA 1918/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1918 /Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Mahesh K. Dhirmalani Addl. Cit, Central Range, बनाम/ Flat No.1103 & 1104, Thane, Vs. Ascona, A- Wing, Income Tax Office, Raheja Garden, Pawar Compound, Charai Teen Hath Naka Thane (W) Thane (W) - 400604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adkpd5616N

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S.Naik (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 50B

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 4442/MUM/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5Th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaacl0140P Mumbai-400020 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4599/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 वष" Dcit - Range 2(2) M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Mukund Chate Assessee By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.26.03.20130Of The Cit(A)-5,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Manufacturing Of Heavy Machinery & Cement, Etc., Filed It Return Of Income On,27.11.1998,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.20 Crores.The Ao Complet -Ed The Assessment,On 28.02.2001, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,09,15,37,490/-.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Mukund Chate
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(9)

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 64/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Anuj KishandwalaFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 50B

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 859/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 439/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 435/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

DCIT, Chennai vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

ITA 1647/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayalakshmi, IRS, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50B

Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

ITA 1388/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayalakshmi, IRS, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50B

D.C.I.T Cir - 7, Kolkata. vs. Bhagirath Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 79/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 50BSection 54B

M/S. the Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-29, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 7524/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7524/Mum/2007 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) The Supreme Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Cc-29, 612, Raheja Chambers, 213, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 1344 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. 2. First Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Taxing Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B R.W.S.2(42C) Arising On The Transfer Of The Bopp Films Undertaking To Xpro India Ltd. (Xil). 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. This Ground Relates To Taxation Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B Read With Section 2(42C) Of The I.T. Act. The Facts In Brief Relating To This Addition Are That During The Previous Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Entered Into A Business Transfer Agreement (Bta) With Xpro India Ltd (Xil) For Sale Of Its Bopp Films Undertaking At Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh As A Going-Concern For A Total

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri
Section 2Section 50B

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S Hanung Processors (P) Ltd., Noida

In the result the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 3056/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 50B

M/S. Hanung Processor Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 2562/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 50B

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Xpro India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 214/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(42)Section 36(2)Section 50B

M/S Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T Range - 5, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 330/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50BSection 5O

CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal

ITA/1003/2011HC Delhi06 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Junior StandingFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms Kavita Jha
Section 260ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B

Utv Software Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3148/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3148/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम/ Utv Software The Acit 11(1), Communications Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 1St Floor, Bldg No. 14, Mumbai-400 020 Solitaire Corporate Park, Gutru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu 4122G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Farokh V. Irani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Dated 21.2.2013 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Substantive Grounds Of Appeal. At The Very Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Stated That Under The Instructions From His Client (Assessee), He Is Not Pressing Ground No. 2, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Farokh V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar
Section 115JSection 2Section 48Section 50B

Profile Gears & Engineering Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 286/CHNY/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.286/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. C. Srikanth, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, JCI.T
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50B