Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act

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
9
citing judgments
2018) 11 SCC 508, Satya Jain (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead)
4 SCC 147 · 1976 · Reported
8
citing judgments
(i) CIT vs. Nirbhayram Deluram, 224 ITR 610 (SC) (ii) Mega Trends v. CIT
56 Taxmann.com 282 · 2015 · High Court
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 50C(2)

Radheshyam S. Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-25(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2976/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Radheshyam S. Gupta, Income-Tax Officer, Wd-25(3)(3), 5Th Floor, Anuradha Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Satyamurty Resi, Plot No. 16, Vs. Complex, N.S. Road, No. 11, Jvpd Mumbai-400051. Scheme, Juhu Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aabpg 4019 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 50C(2)

Mohammed Khalid Habib Parihar, Mumbai vs. I.T.O., Ward-31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3345/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50C

Meter and Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 564/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 564/Del/2024 (A.Y 2015-16)

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR & Sh
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43CSection 50C(2)

Gaurav Dugar, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

ITA 948/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147wSection 148Section 263Section 43CSection 52(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

Tarun Mohan Jani, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2021-21 Tarun Mohan Jani To The Acit Flat No. 402, Plot No. 371/E-2, Circle (22) (1) Flora Avenue, Sandhu Garden Vs. Mumbai Junction, 10Th Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaipj 4691 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat B Raichandani & Bhagrati Sahu Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Bharat B Raichandani and Bhagrati SahuFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, SR. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C(2)Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)

Shreeyans Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 43CSection 45(2)Section 49(1)Section 50C

Farhana Mushtaq Begum, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2720/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrifarhana Mushtaq Vs. Ito, Ward – 30(1)(3) C-13, 5Th Floor, Begum Pratyakshar Bhavan, Plot No. 373, Poonam Bandra (E), Mumbai. Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aubpb4014C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Mohammed Shahab Khan, Adv Respondent By Ms.Jancy Elizabeth Rani. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 Order Per Renu Jauhri, Am: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai (In Short “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 55, Mumbai Seriously Erred In Law & On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In Confirming The Impugned

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

Shri Govind Baboorao Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO 42(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 632/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 49Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Shri Dilip Manibhai Prajapati, Dholka vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 179/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Dilip Manibhai Prajapati Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) 1, Shitalnath Society Ahmedabad. Opp: Aath Gam Patel Wadi, Saroda Road Kalikund Dhoka 382 225 Pan : Acspp 9801 C

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR, and Shri Samir Vora, AR
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Hemina Sandipkumar Shah, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cicle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 47/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)

Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 46/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 43CSection 50CSection 50C(2)

Mohammed Khalid Masud, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 171/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Khalid Masud……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 70, Karaya Road, Circus Row Kolkata - 700019. [Pan:Afapm6677G] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 389 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Further Supported By An Affidavit Of The Petitioner Namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Saroja Bai Thakur, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/HYD/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Saroja Bai Thakur, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/HYD/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Realtech Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 146/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 146/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Realtech Nirman Pvt. Ltd.,……………………..Appellant T-68, Tegharia Main Road, Post-Hatiara, Behind Lokenath Mandir, Kolkata-700059, West Bengal [Pan:Aadcr6464K] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….…Respondent Circle11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115Section 15Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber vs. Farida Zulfikar Lokhandwala, Mumbai

ITA 2512/MUM/2023[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.2512/मुं/2023(नि.व.2020-21)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.Gopal & Om Kandalkar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.AR
Section 50C(2)

Goldgreen Land Holdings LLP( Formerly Gold Green Holdings Private Limited), Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 473/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 50C

Global Shoes and Accessoris Manufacturing Co., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 48(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshglobal Shoes & Accessories Vs. Dcit, Manufacturing Co., Circle-48(1), C/O. Prakash K Prakash, 6H, New Delhi Hansalaya Building, Barakhamba Road, Cannaught Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaifg4169N Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

Abdul Rashid, Ghat Gate Bazar, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Jaipur, New Ncrb Building, C Scheme

ITA 521/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv. )For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)