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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya D Mahadevia, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1351/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1351/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Acit 19(1), Mumbai Vs. Shri Aditya D Mahadevia E-12, Sea Face Park Bhula Bhai Desai Road Mumbai - 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm3641A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.166/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1351/Mum/2015) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Shri Aditya D Mahadevia Vs. Acit 19(1), Mumbai E-12, Sea Face Park Bhula Bhai Desai Road Mumbai - 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm3641A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Dhondial याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Jitendera Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/10/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 & Cross Objection By The Assessee. 2. The Grievance Of Revenue Relates To Deleting The Addition Of Rs.41,47,204/- Made By Ao On Account Of Transfer Of Lease Hold Rights In The Property Under Section 50C Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.DhondialFor Respondent: Shri Jitendera Jain
Section 50C

Yatin Hariram Ruparel, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2424/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Yatin Hariram Ruparel Ito-17(3)(4), बनाम/ 7, View Villa, Piramal Chambers, 425, Shradhanand Cross Road, Lalbaug, Parel-12 Vs. Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpr 2921 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dinesh Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 07.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 28.12.2011. 2. The Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal, Raised Per Several Grounds, Is The Exigibility To Tax Of The Gains Arising To The Assessee On The Sale Of His Interest In A Land And, In Case Taxable, The Value & The Manner Of Taxability Of Such Gain Under The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)