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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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

Smt. Rajeswari Iyer, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation-1(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 3752/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3751/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3752/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt.Rajeswari Iyer The Income Tax Officer 6/19, Chitharanjan Road, Vs. International Taxation 1(2) Alwarpet Chennai. Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Acepi7246J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Jenaradhanan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Cit(A), Chennai – 16, [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Orders Dated 31.03.2016 & 30.12.2016 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation 1(2)

For Appellant: Shri. G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Jenaradhanan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 50C

Smt. Rajeswari Iyer, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation-1(2), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 3751/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3751/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3752/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt.Rajeswari Iyer The Income Tax Officer 6/19, Chitharanjan Road, Vs. International Taxation 1(2) Alwarpet Chennai. Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Acepi7246J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Jenaradhanan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Two Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 29.08.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Cit(A), Chennai – 16, [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Orders Dated 31.03.2016 & 30.12.2016 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation 1(2)

For Appellant: Shri. G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Jenaradhanan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 50C

Vasantha Kalyanasondaram, Saligramam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 8(1) Che, Nungambakkam, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3690/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3690/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vasantha Kalyanasondaram The Income Tax Officer No.138, M.G.R.Street Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1) Kaveri Rangan Nagar Chennai. Saligramam S.O., Saligramam Chennai – 600 093. [Pan: Fhjpk0739K] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Sailesh Bhandari, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.01.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2023 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. :-2-: Ita. No3690/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sailesh Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 50C