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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Vijayawada vs. Ivaturi Mahalakshmi, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the assesee’s Cross Objection is allowed

ITA 509/VIZ/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.509/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Ivaturi Mallikharjuan Rao, Ward-2(2), L/R & Son Of Late Smt. Vijayawada. Ivaturi Mahalakshmamma, Vijayawada. Pan: Aatpi 0474 P (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) Co. No.18/Viz/2019 (In आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.509/Viz/2018) (ननधधारण वषा / Ay : 2006-07) Sri Ivaturi Mallikharjuan Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, L/R & Son Of Late Smt. Ivaturi Ward-2(2), Mahalakshmamma, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aatpi 0474 P (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 08/07/2022 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 48Section 50C

Syed Mohd. Ilyas, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4466/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2014-15 Syed Mohd. Ilyas, Vs. Ito, 458-A, 4Th Floor, Plot No.8, Ward-28(1), Zakir Nagar, New Delhi. West Zamia Nagar, New Delhi. Pan: Abrpm3695B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Of The Cit(A)-10, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “I) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Cit (A) Has Erred By Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 4,34,900/- Which Is Merely Less Than 2% Of Sales Consideration. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Cit (A) Has Erred By Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 4,34,900/- In View Of The Amendment To Section 50C Vide Finance Act, 2018 Allowing The Variation Upto 5% Of The Value Assessed Or Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority, Which Is Explanatory In Nature. Iii) The Appellant Craves The Leave To Add, Substitute, Modify, Delete Or Amend All Or Any Ground Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 50C

A.C.I.T., Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Ratan Kumar Saha, Kolkata

ITA 154/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Acit, Cir-49(1&2), Kolkata 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Vs. Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Vs. 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax, 1961 Dated 30.12.2016. Consequent To That Another Cross Appeal Is Also Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 154/Kol/2020 Against The Same Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Enumerated As Under: Assessee’S Ground: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Grossly Unjustified In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,69,590/- Under The Head A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 10(14)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C

Shri Ratan Kumar Saha, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-49(1&2), Kolkata

ITA 137/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Acit, Cir-49(1&2), Kolkata 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Vs. Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata Shri Ratan Kumar Saha Vs. 299, Gorakshabasi Road, Dum Dum – 700 028. Pan: Alcps 9290 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 08.11.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax, 1961 Dated 30.12.2016. Consequent To That Another Cross Appeal Is Also Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 154/Kol/2020 Against The Same Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A). Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Enumerated As Under: Assessee’S Ground: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Grossly Unjustified In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,69,590/- Under The Head A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 10(14)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C