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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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

The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (4), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Jagjit Builders and Developers, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 137/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.137/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) I.T.O, बनाम/ M/S Jagjit Builders & Ward-2(1), Developers, Vs. Rajkot. Ankur Apts., Dr. Floor, Aadarsh Society, B/H Ioc Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj9480A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Maurya, Cit. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 27/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25/02/2016, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 27/02/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2012-13. A.Y. 2012-13 The 1St Issue Raised By The Revenue Is That The Learned Cit (A) Erred In 2. Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao For Rs. 10,20,62,695/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure Under Section 69C Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Maurya, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.R
Section 133ASection 69C

Kusumlata Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1112/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.1112/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kusumlata Sonthalia Vs. Pcit, Central-1, Kolkata. 34, Pankaj Mallick Sarani, Jayantika Apartment, 1St Floor, Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700019. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbpa8446Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nirav Shesth, Aca Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Coming To The Basic Relevant Facts, We Notice That The Pcit’S Action Under Challenge Has Assumed Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Act To Hold The Regular Assessment In Question Framed In Assessee’S Case On 30.12.2016 As An Erroneous One Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue On The Ground That The Assessing Officer Had Failed To Carry Out Factual Verification/Necessary Enquires/Investigation Regarding The Tax-Payer’S Long Term Capital Losses Of Rs.156075/- & Gains Of Rs.13010/- As Per Stamp Duty Valuation(S) Of Rs.1465454/-And Rs.1353454/-; Respectively. He Thus Sought To Invoke Section

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shesth, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 14ASection 153ASection 263