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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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

ITO Ward-1(3) (6), Surat vs. Devshibhai Jethabhai Sheta(HUF), Surat

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee is dismissed as infractious

ITA 1678/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1678/Ahd/2017, िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 (Hearing In Virtual Court) Ito Ward -1(3)(6), Vs Devshibhai Jethabhai Sheta Room No.303, (Huf), Anavil Bussiness Centre , D-702, Mahadev Residency, Near Adajan Brts, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat -395009 Surat [Pan: Aaehd 3710 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Co. No.01/Srt/2021 In Ita No.1678/Ahd/2017 (Ay 2008-09) Devshibhai Jethabhai Sheta Vs Ito Ward -1(3)(6), (Huf), Room No.303, D-702, Mahadev Residency, Anavil Bussiness Centre , Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Near Adajan Brts, Surat Surat -395009 [Pan: Aaehd 3710 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shritinish Mody Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shorte Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 19.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By Revenue & Cross Objection Therein By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Surat, Dated 06.04.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Revenue Has Raised Ground Following Grounds Of Appeal;

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Dharampal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1946/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Dharampal Brothers Pvt. Dcit-9(3)(1) Room No.215, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Mehra Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Compound, Sakinaka, Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacd4297R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 50C Do Not Apply To A Leasehold Land. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Decision Of The Bombay High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P) Ltd. 389 Itr 68 (Bombay) Wherein The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Held That Section 50C Does Not Apply To Leasehold Land. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.40,87,381/- As Short Term Capital Gain & Rs.1,65,91,485/- As Long Term Capital Gains.”

For Appellant: Shri Shekar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 50C