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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1980/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1979&1980/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Rajesh Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata C/O Sri S.L. Kochar, Advocate, 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpa3042Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.43/Cit(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/12-13/16- 17/Kol & 44/Cit(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/13-14/16-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Respectively; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First & Foremost Identical Grievance Is That Both The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Applying Profit Rate Of 8% On The Civil Construction Business Receipts Resulting In Addition Of Rs.84,53,313/- & Rs.25,56,747/-; Assessment Year Wise, Respectively. Mr. Kochar Invited Our Attention To The Assessment Order(S) As Well As The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion(S) To This Effect Estimating The Assessee’S Profit Rate Declared @1.44 & 1.18%

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1979/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1979&1980/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Rajesh Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata C/O Sri S.L. Kochar, Advocate, 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpa3042Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.43/Cit(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/12-13/16- 17/Kol & 44/Cit(A)-10/Wd-36(1)/13-14/16-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Respectively; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First & Foremost Identical Grievance Is That Both The Lower Authorities Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Applying Profit Rate Of 8% On The Civil Construction Business Receipts Resulting In Addition Of Rs.84,53,313/- & Rs.25,56,747/-; Assessment Year Wise, Respectively. Mr. Kochar Invited Our Attention To The Assessment Order(S) As Well As The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion(S) To This Effect Estimating The Assessee’S Profit Rate Declared @1.44 & 1.18%

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Sh. Anil Swarup, Meerut vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both appeals of different assessee are allowed

ITA 5928/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Alok Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9949J Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5928/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Anil Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9948K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

Sh. Alok Swarup, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both appeals of different assessee are allowed

ITA 2919/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Alok Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9949J Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5928/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Anil Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9948K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C