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)

Smt. Vimla Devi Samariya, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the ground

ITA 348/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)

Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54BSection 54FSection 55A

The ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Rambhai Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 69/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 50C

Kunvverji Bachubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. JCIT 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6710/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6710/Mum/2016 (यनिावरण र्र्व / Assessment Year :2011-12) Shri Kunverji Bachubhai Shah Vs. Jcit-24(1) 2-12, Vijay Villa, Guffa Road Mumbai Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai – 400 060 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacps2608A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Snehal R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri

Section 143(3)Section 16(3)Section 44ASection 68

Shri Ganpatbhai Jethabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.DR

Section 55(2)(ii)

Avishkar Film Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Mangal Murti Films Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. I.T.O. 11 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2256/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak

Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

M/S Divakar Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-5, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1304/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat.

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samdhani (CA) &For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)

Manisha Rithesbhai Soni, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2450/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2450/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Apoorva Bhardwaja

Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 237/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 23/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Sunil Kumar Kedia Vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-3, Jamshedpur Pan: Afrpk7574F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Ld.Ar For The Respondent : Shri P.K. Mondal, Jcit, Ld. Sr.Dr I.T.A No. 237/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. D.C.I.T,Cir-3, Ranchi Pan: Acwpa4378B (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : S/Sh. Vinay Goenka, Advocate & V.N. Goenka, Fca, Ld.Ars For The Respondent : Shri P.K. Mondal, Jcit, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : -03-2019

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR

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

Sri Vivek Kumar, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 267/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR

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

Smt Narayanamma, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 2162/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT (DR)

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Keyaa Exim Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 697/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Acherya, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Satish Kumar Tandon, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4877/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 50Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 50C(2)(a)Section 56(2)

Shahin Akhtar, Islampur vs. ITO, Ward - 2(4), Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur

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

ITA 2410/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2410/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shahin Akhtar -Vs- Ito, Ward-2(4), Uttar Dinajpur [Pan: Aknpa 4249 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Saha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 155Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Mohammad Gulzar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 25(3), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 363/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 363/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M. D. Shah, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Halder, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vi)

Midnapore Agro United Hatchery Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Midnapur, Paschim Medinipur

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

ITA 777/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Lt.A No. 777/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 45Section 48

Shashikant Birmal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2959/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2959/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Shashikant Birmal, ‘Suryoday’, Shri Navvinayak, Sahakari Sanshta, Kothrud, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aavpb4855F Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak and P.D.KudvaFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

Prakash R. Hirani, Mumbai vs. Formerly ITO Ward 15(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 2981/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Prakash R. Hirani, The Ito Ward 15(1)(4), 306, Gopalpure Bldg., Matrumandir, S.V. Road, Mumbai Mumbai - 400092 Vs. Pan: Aaaph4767P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(47)Section 50C(2)

Shri Amrutbhai Atmarambhai Patel, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the ground no 1 of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose, ground no

ITA 118/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

Vishal Dye Chem Industires P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6906/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2007-08 Vishal Dye Chem Industries P.Ltd., Ito 7(3)(1), 210 Sujata Chambers, Mumbai Vs. Abhechand Gandhi Marg, Mumbai 400 009

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 143(3)

Sivasankaran Uma, Pondicherry vs. DCIT Puducherry Circle, Puducherry

ITA 2783/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2783/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT

Section 50CSection 50C(2)