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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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

Prasanta Kumar Ghosal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-22(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2570/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2013-14 Prasanta Kumar Ghosal Income Tax Officer बनाम / 115/2A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Ward-22(1), 54/1, Rafi V/S. Moulali, Kolkata-700 014 Ahmed Kidwai Road, [Pan No. Amspg 6878 N] Kolkata-700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Nandadulal Pyne, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-02-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 14-02-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6 Kolkata’S Order Dated 07.11.2019 Passed In Case No.Cit(A)-6, Kolkata-6/10636/18-19, Involving Proceedings U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. I Notice At The Outset From A Perusal Of The Cit(A)’S Order That He Has Refused To Condone Two Years & Two Months’ Delay In Filing Of The Lower Appeal At The Assessee’S Behest Attributing Reasons Thereof To Prolonged Illness. The Revenue’S Case During The Course Of Hearing Before Me Is That The Assessee’S Condonation Filed Before The Cit(A) Did Not Explain The Above Noted Delay. I Proceed In This Backdrop That The Assessing Officer Had Added Assessee’S Long Term Capital Gains Of ₹28,74,051/- U/S 50C Of The Act Without Making Statutory Reference To The Dvo As Affirmed In The Lower Appellate Order. As Against This The Impugned Two Years & Two Months’ Delay Is Only Procedural In Nature. Hon'Ble Apex Court’S Landmark Decision Collector

Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Sbi Staff Chitralekha Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-40, Mumbai

ITA 2526/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2526/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sbi Staff Chitralekha Chs बिधम/ Cit-40 Ltd. C-10, Bldg R. No.306, Vs. Flat No.1603, Prem Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc Chitralekha Saen Guruji Bandra East, Mumbai- Nagar Mulund East, 400051. Mumbai-400081. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagas4096K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri Surabhi Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 4.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Adding Rs.3,07,86,423/- As Stcg & Has Wrongly Treated The Said Amount As Taxable Capital Gain. The Ao

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Surabhi Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 50C