Section 50C of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.78

Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 78 (Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 78 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 50C is CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306), cited in 1,344 of the 3,223 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 50C

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd.
80 Taxmann.com 221 · 2017 · High Court
444
citing judgments

Section 14A cannot be invoked to disallow expenditure if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The Explanation to Section 14A is prospective in nature.

Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT
224 ITR 677 · 1997 · Supreme Court
398
citing judgments

Amendments to the Income-tax Act that are curative, clarificatory, or beneficial in nature apply retrospectively from the date the original statutory provision was introduced, even if not explicitly stated.

CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd.
49 Taxmann.com 249 · 2014 · Supreme Court
294
citing judgments

Legislation is ordinarily presumed not to have retrospective operation, especially for taxing statutes unless explicitly stated or when intended to remove hardship for the assessee. The decision clarifies the principles for determining whether an amendment to a taxing statute applies prospectively or retrospectively, distinguishing between clarificatory and substantive amendments.

CIT v. Paul Brothers
216 ITR 548 · 1995 · High Court
164
citing judgments

Once a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT
372 ITR 83 · 2015 · High Court
159
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to refer the valuation of property to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) when an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation or if there is a discrepancy between the actual sale consideration and the guideline value. This reference is mandatory, even if not explicitly requested by the assessee, to ensure a realistic fair market value and avoid injustice.

Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT
131 ITR 451 · 1981 · Supreme Court
143
citing judgments

Appellate authorities in income-tax proceedings have the jurisdiction and duty to correct all errors of lower authorities. They must remit matters for proper or fresh adjudication and issue appropriate directions to ensure substantial justice, unless expressly forbidden by statute.

Nirma Industries Ltd. v. DCIT
283 ITR 402 · 2006 · High Court
136
citing judgments

Interest received on delayed payments for sales is considered part of the sale proceeds and is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA as business income.

Rajeev Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT
149 ITD 363 · 2014 · ITAT
104
citing judgments

Curative amendments, such as a proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced to remove undue hardship, apply retrospectively even without specific legislative declaration, rectifying shortcomings and obviating unintended difficulties.

Ltd. v. DCIT
76 Taxmann.com 268 · 2016 · High Court
101
citing judgments

Where the Assessing Officer performs an elaborate analysis to determine disallowance under Section 14A, the mere absence of a specific record of dissatisfaction with the assessee's calculation does not nullify the disallowance, provided the statutory steps are followed.

Judgments on Section 50C

Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Sweta Somani Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata 2, Munshi Sadruddin Lane, 2Nd Floor, Barabazar, West Bengal-700007 [Pan: Axdps0596F] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Respondent By : Shri Amit Kumar Barua, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2026 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Gurugram [“The Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short], Dated 18.03.2026 With Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1087530491(1), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2017 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. For That They Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Adding Back Rs.27,42,221/- U/S 56(2)(B)(Vii) When He Should Have Considered The Fair Market Value Of The Property Purchased On The Date Of Agreement Since Part Consideration Was Paid Through Banking Channels. 2. For That They Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Adding Back Rs.27,42,221/- U/S 56(2)(B)(Vii) When Sweta Somani; A.Y.: 2015-16 He Should Have Referred The Valuation Of Fair Market Value Of The Property Purchased On The Date Of Agreement To The Dvo. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Adding Back Rs.2,00,000/- Claimed As Interest Paid On Loan Taken For House Property Without Mentioning Any Reason Whatsoever When Evidence Of Payment Was Duly Filed.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR
Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68