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)

Apurba Sen, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-23(3), Hooghly.

ITA 1233/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 1233/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Apurba Sen,.............................................Appellant 186, Seakhala P.S. Chanditala, Dist. Hooghly-712706, West Bengal [Pan: Bthps7156J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-23(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S.P. Datta & Sukanya Datta, A.R, 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 : January 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Mahindra Singla, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Gurugram

ITA 1634/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshmahindra Singla, Vs. Ito, C/O. Kapil Goel, Adv, Ward-2(4), F-26/124, Sector-7, Gurugram Rohini, New Delhi Pan: Adhps9577Q Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

ACIT Central Cirlce-26, New Delhi vs. Noida Cyber Park Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2136/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Smt. Saritha Jain, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Ward-1(1), Bengaluru

ITA 51/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 51/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Saritha Jain, The Income Tax Flat No. 3, 28/1, Officer Gowri Kunj, (International Palace Cross Road, Taxation), Vasanth Nagar, Ward – 1(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aedpj9216L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nischal .B, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 25oSection 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54

Rohit Jainendra Jain, Faridabad vs. ACIT CC-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 8024/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3454/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08 Arun Kumar Aggarwal Acit Circle – 24 (1) B-1/74, Safdarjung Enclave, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110029 Pan No.Aaepa1259K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 154Section 2(14)Section 263Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

Vikas Singhal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1480/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Vikas Singhal, Vs Ito, B-2323, 2Nd Floor, Dsidc Indl.Area, Ward-35(5), Narela, New Delhi-110040. New Delhi. Pan-Fcsps5487J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C(2)

Best Auto Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1753/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv

Section 154

Best Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3052/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv

Section 154

The Bombay Samachar Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle-2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1460/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)

ITO (Exemptions), Trichy vs. Temple Consciousness Thanjai Nagara Manavalakkalai Mandram Trust, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 1433/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Balasubramanian Adityan Legal Heir of Dr. B Sivanthi Adityan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1700/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1700/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Balasubramanian Adityan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Dr. B. Sivanthi Adityan, Income Tax, No. 6, E.V.K. Sampath Road, Corporate Circle 6(2), Vepery, Chennai 600 007. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aampa7576R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate For Shri Pmn Bhagavath Krishnan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. In The Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. Reassessment Made Us 147: (I) The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming The Reassessment Made U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate for Shri PMN Bhagavath Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C(2)

Zubeda Khalil Nadkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-33(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1040/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalezubeda Khalil Badkar Ito Ward 33(1)(1), Flatno.2205,Windsor, Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Shastrinagar, Bkc, Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapn2290G (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Jhunjhunwala.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Abhisek Kumar Singh.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 68Section 69