How many judgments are there on Section 50C(2)?

BharatTax indexes 293 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act?

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83) is the decision most relied on for Section 50C(2), cited in 159 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.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 50C(2)?

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83) — 159 citing judgments; Muthuraja v. CIT (369 ITR 483) — 9 citing judgments; 2018) 11 SCC 508, Satya Jain (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead) (4 SCC 147) — 8 citing judgments; (i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends v. CIT (56 Taxmann.com 282) — 8 citing judgments.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.78

Section 50C(2) falls under section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which 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(2) is Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83), cited in 159 of the 293 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 50C(2)

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.

Muthuraja v. CIT

369 ITR 483 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

2018) 11 SCC 508, Satya Jain (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead)

4 SCC 147 · 1976 · Reported

citing judgments

(i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends v. CIT

56 Taxmann.com 282 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 50C(2)

Vankayalapati Kirmaye, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2126/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2010-2011 Ito, Ward -15(1), Vs. Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Hyderabad Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Vs. Ito, Ward -15(1), Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Hyderabad Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutham CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 148Section 50C

Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad vs. Vankayalapati Kirmayee, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1839/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutham CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 148Section 50C

Kiran R Sawlani, Mumbai vs. ITO (Intl. Tax) 4 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1669/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kiran R. Sawlani Ito (Intl. Tax) 4(1)(1) 104/A, Building No. A/3, Vs. R. No. 1729, 17Th Floor, Lok Nirman, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052 Mumbai – 400 021S

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shiddaramappa K., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

Natalie Meria Godfrey, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 248/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Karen Judaline Godfrey, Australia vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

Appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1697/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Shri Manjunath Mysore Cheluve Urs, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated

ITA 2644/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 54

Ravindar Reddy Palle, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 207/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sri Ravindar Reddy Palle Vs Ito, Ward 9(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Ahmpp 1316 M] [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudan Mannava, DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaroop, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50Section 56(2)(vii)

Priyankar Bhadani, Gaya vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gaya

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 205/PAT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] Ita. No. 205/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Priyankar Bhadani.................................…………………………………………………………..Appellant Ramdaspur Road, Near Gurudwara, Gaya State Bihar – 823 002. [Pan : Aegpb 9045 J] Vs Ito, Ward – 3(2), Gaya…………………………………………..………………………………...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kumar Prasad Sinha, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ajay Kumar, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 07, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2021 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-1 Dated 25.09.2018 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 14,11,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Shobha Rastogi, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Allahabad

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

ITA 47/ALLD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Shobha Rastogi, V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 30-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Afqpr4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Shri Ramjibhai N.Vithani, Surat vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-9, Surat

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

ITA 751/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

For Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla — Sr.DR

Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Mrs. Sulakshana Nanche, Mumbai vs. ITO 33 (3)(5), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 457/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 457/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) Mrs. Sulakshana Nanche, Bunglow No.98, Madhushri, Charkop, Sector 1, Kandvivali West, Mumbai 400 067 Pan: Acupn-3354-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer – 33(3)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee LondheFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 50C(2)