Which cases are most cited on Section 50D?

Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT (45 Taxmann.com 176) — 21 citing judgments; CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar (247 ITR 801) — 20 citing judgments; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. CIT (307 ITR 312) — 17 citing judgments; Sify Software Ltd. v. ACIT (80 Taxmann.com 273) — 10 citing judgments; PCIT v. Kurule Paper Mills P. Ltd. (380 ITR 64) — 6 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 50D?

BharatTax indexes 32 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 50D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 50D of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 50D of the Income Tax Act?

Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT (45 Taxmann.com 176) is the decision most relied on for Section 50D, cited in 21 judgments. Section 56(2)(vii)(c) does not apply to additional shares allotted pro rata to existing shareholders, as there is no scope for any property being received in such a situation.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.80

Section 50D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 80 (Fair market value deemed to be full value of consideration in certain cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 80 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 50D is Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT (45 Taxmann.com 176), cited in 21 of the 32 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 50D

Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT

45 Taxmann.com 176 · 2014 · ITAT

citing judgments

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) does not apply to additional shares allotted pro rata to existing shareholders, as there is no scope for any property being received in such a situation.

CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar

247 ITR 801 · 2001 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Consideration paid to a retiring partner, even if it exceeds the balance in their capital account, is not chargeable to tax as it does not constitute a 'transfer'.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. CIT

307 ITR 312 · 2008 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The term 'allotment of shares' signifies the appropriation of previously unappropriated capital, and shares only come into existence upon such allotment. This principle is relevant for understanding the issuance of bonus shares.

Sify Software Ltd. v. ACIT

80 Taxmann.com 273 · 2017 · Reported

citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment under section 263 if the Assessing Officer failed to conduct an independent inquiry or made an error in the assessment order. The revision is not justified if the Assessing Officer considered the assessee's submissions and relied on relevant case laws.

PCIT v. Kurule Paper Mills P. Ltd.

380 ITR 64 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Vide CIT v. Patel Proteins (P) Ltd. 2017 Tax Pub(DT) 1188 (Guj-HC)

393 ITR 274 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 50D

Sitha Mahalakshmi Katamaneni, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Vijayawada

ITA 226/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Aug 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: AFRPK3816L

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 48

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1), Bengaluru vs. L K Trust, Bengaluru

ITA 1375/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2018-19 L.K. Trust, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.9, Khoday House Seshadri Road, Central Circle - 1(1), Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore – 560 009. Bangalore. Pan – Aaatl 0522 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. L.K. Trust, Central Circle - 1(1), No.9, Khoday House Seshadri Bangalore Road, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore – 560 009. Pan – Aaatl 0522 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri A Shankar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Shivanad Kalkeri, Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2026 O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri A Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalkeri, CIT

Section 153A

L K Trust, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1147/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri A Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalkeri, CIT

Section 153A

Suresh Anant Patil, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 35(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1850/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Arun Khodpiasuresh Anant Patil Vs Ito Ward 35(3)(4), Mumbai 289, 8/9, Sai Sarshan, Kadam Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Wadi, Hanuman Nagar, Akruli Mumbai-400051 Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101 Pan:Ainpp2882L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jagdish T. Punjabi/Ms. Ritu Punjabi Revenue By : Shri Pasale Naganath Bhimrao-(Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/05/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Addl/Jcit-(A)-1, Vadodara [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15, Date Of Order 12.01.2026. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Income Tax Officer-35(3)(4)

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish T. Punjabi/Ms. Ritu PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri Pasale Naganath Bhimrao-(Sr.DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50D

Jigar Sevantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7418/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarjigar Sevantilal Shah, Income Tax Officer, 503, 5Th Floor, Praman Heritage, Vp Ward 19(1)(5), Vs. Road, Sikka Nagar, Girgaon, Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai - 400004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Alkps 6823J Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Shah Respondent By : Shri Nayanjoti Nath, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath, Sr. AR

Section 56(2)

Gaurav Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2306/KOL/2025[205-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1784/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)(viia)

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru vs. Alakananda Printers (P) Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and CO filed by the assessee in support of the Order of the CIT(A)

ITA 1774/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Boarkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 2(47)

ACIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bombay Footwear Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji and Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 45Section 50D

Saheed Palkkandy Kottoth, Kannur vs. DCIT International Taxation, Kochi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 107/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsaheed Palkkandy Kottoth Dcit (International Taxation) Safa Kottoth, Paral Kochi Vs. Thalassery, Kannur 670671 [Pan: Akhpp4843M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- Noe -------For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 50D

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Alagappa Muthaiah HUF, Bengaluru

ITA 954/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Dcit Rajamahal Vilas Extension Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 080 Bangalore

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R

Section 131

Smart Information Worldwide Inc, Chennai vs. ACIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 330/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Smart Information Worldwide Inc. Dcit बनाम/ 49 Sixth Main Road, International Taxation -2(2) Vs. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-8497-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Ravichandran (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 48Section 50CSection 50D

Venkata Reddy Challa, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 612/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harshita Chouhan, SR.AR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Kolla Gowri, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1039/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Kolla Gowri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, R/O.Chennai. Chittoor. Pan : Aoepg6939E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.A. Sumitra Nandan, Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Sumitra NandanFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50DSection 53A