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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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

M/S. Singh Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 920/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravivs M/S. Singh Udyog Pvt.Ltd., Pr.Cit-1, C/O-Rajesh Mohan & P-7, Chowringhee Associates, Bagati House, Unit Square, Room No.4, No.18, 5Th Floor, 34, Ganesh 7Th Floor, Kolkata- Chandra Avenue, 700069. Kolkata-700013. Pan-Aagcs8184E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sunil Surana, Ar Respondent By Sh. G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.03.2018 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Passed By Pr. Cit-1, Kolkata For Ay 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 05.09.2013 For The Impugned Assessment Year. Pr.Cit Passed A Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act On 16.03.2018 On The Ground That Section 50C Of The Act Comes Into Play In The Case On Hand & Valuation As Per Stamp Duty Authority Is Required To Adopted For Calculation Of Capital Gains & Hence, There Was Error On Facts & In Law Committed By The Causing Prejudice To Revenue. Hence, He Held That Assessment Order Dated 18.01.2016 Passed By The Ao Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee’S Business Is Sale Of Plots & The Income In Question Is Assessed Under The Head “Income From Business & Profession”. Ld.Ar Filed A Paper Book

Section 263Section 50C