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a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.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

Bhikamchand S. Shah, Na

ITA 115/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.115/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Bhikhamchand S. Shah, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, Kadampalli Apt., Samroli, N.H. Navsari. No.8, Post-Chilhli, Navsari-396521, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aezps9850B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surji D. Chheda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Vls/752/16-17/2265, Dated 23.01.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”], Dated 29.12.2016. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Begins By Pointing Out That During The Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Has Submitted His Submissions, That Is, Submission No.1 & 2, Which Have Not Been Considered By The Ld. Cit(A) While Adjudicating Assessee’S Appeal. Learned Counsel Submits That Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Call The Remand Report In Respect Of The Disputed Issue, In Assessee`S Case, Which Is, The Difference In Violation Of Property. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Co-Terminus Power, Therefore He Ought To Have Examined The Assessee’S Issue, Written Submission & The Evidences Filed Before Him During The Appellate Proceedings. Assessment Year. 2014-15 Bhikhamchand S. Shah 3. On The Other Hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. Dr) For The Revenue Relied On The Order Of The Ld Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Surji D. Chheda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Kaushalya Dealers Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata Ltd. 498/H/4, Karl Mark Vs. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 023. Pan: Aadck8028Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr). Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 29.05.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit] Relevant To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act & Also The Consequent Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That Revisionary Jurisdiction As Well As The Consequent Order Is Invalid & Nullity As Necessary Conditions Envisaged In Section 263 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Before Invoking The Revisionary Jurisdiction. The Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed A Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 69,040/- Which Was Processed U/S 2 Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd. 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Assessment Was Framed Vide Order Dated 05.09.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing The Income At Rs. 69,040/- After Taking Into Account The Various Contentions/Replies Of The Assessee Filed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50C