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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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

Ananth Vasudev Naik, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1899/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08 Anant Vasudeo Naik, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(5), Pan : Abgpn5360D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2007-08 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 01.06.2018 In Appeal No.10034/17-18/B2 Cit(A)-6, Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Assessee’S Instant Appeal Suffers From 514 Days Of Delay In Filing. Learned Counsel Submitted That Assessee Is Old Aged Person & Not At All Conversed With E-Proceedings & Could Not Track The Messages, Which Caused The Impugned Delay In Filing Of The Instant Appeal. The Same Are Unrebutted From The Revenue’S Side During The Course Of Hearing. Case Law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 Air 1353 (Sc) & University Of Delhi Vs. Union Of India, Civl Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 Dt.17.12.2019, Hold That Such A Delay; Supported By Cogent Reasons, Deserves To Be Condoned So As To Make Way Of The Cause Of Substantial Justice. We Accordingly Hold That Assessee’S Impugned Delay Of 514 Days Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate. The Same Stands Condoned. Case Is Now Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits Therefore.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra ChenjiFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

Mrs. Jiviben Taljibhai Rabari, Harij vs. ITO, Ward-3, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1592/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavassessment Year :2012-13 Mrs. Jiviben Taljibhai Rabari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, At. Boratwada, Ward-3, Tal. Harij Patan Pan : Clqpd 7447 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shrihemal Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2022 सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2022 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 05.09.2016 Passed For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 22 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. On Due Consideration Of The Application Of The Assessee As Also Considering The Reason That The Assessee Had Not Received The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Well In Time As Mentioned In The Application, I Deem It Fit & Proper To Condone The Marginal Delay Of 22 Days In Filing Of The Appeal Before The Tribunal. I, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: ShriHemal Desai, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)