This compilation indexes twelve rulings pronounced between May and June 2026 in which the citation "Section 50" appears across different statutory contexts — including Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (capital gains on depreciable assets), Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (interest on delayed tax payment), Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (appellate jurisdiction), Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (conditions for search of a person), Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 / Transfer of Property Act, and related provisions. The compilation is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured first-pass index of recent judicial activity touching "Section 50" in any of the above instruments. Each entry records the authoritative identity fields verbatim from the TaxNoticeAI CASE_FACTS corpus and grounds its prose note strictly in the corresponding source preview.

Research index only — not legal advice. This page is a structured case-law reference tool. Nothing here constitutes legal, tax, or procedural advice. Readers must independently verify each judgment against its full text, check for subsequent stays or reversals, and consult qualified counsel.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

The numeral "50" appears in multiple Indian statutes invoked in the rulings below, and readers should identify the correct instrument before researching any entry. Under the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 50 provides a special rule for computing capital gains arising from the transfer of depreciable assets forming part of a block of assets: the net written-down value of the block (after deducting the sale consideration) or, where the block ceases to exist, the relevant computation is treated as short-term capital gain, irrespective of the period of holding. Under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 50 governs the levy of interest on delayed payment of tax, prescribing the rate and the basis on which interest accrues. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 50 defines the scope of appealable orders in relation to enforcement of foreign awards. Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 50 prescribes the conditions and procedure to be followed when a person is to be searched. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 50 relates to the legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor. The statutory context for each ruling below is discernible from the sections list and the source preview; readers should not assume a uniform statutory instrument across cases.

The 12 rulings

1. Asean Lng Trading Co. Ltd., Now Known As vs Nishu Tours And Travels Ltd

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 24 June 2026
Sections engaged: 48(2), 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as R/First Appeal No. 3694 of 2018 (with an accompanying Civil Application for Stay No. 1 of 2018) before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad, and was reserved on 21 April 2026 before being pronounced on 24 June 2026. The source preview is procedural in nature, reflecting the cause-title, coram, and approval-for-reporting markings of a 126-page CAV judgment; no substantive holding on the merits is extractable from the available preview.

2. Tvl. Veeralakshmi Electrical vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 19 June 2026
Sections engaged: 50, 73
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P(MD) No. 17032 of 2026) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, challenging an impugned assessment order dated 31.12.2024 (GSTIN 33JUFPS2022L1ZG/2020-21) and a consequential rectification order in Form GST DRC-08 dated 03.10.2025, both stated by the petitioner to be without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. Per the source preview, the impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017; the petition had been heard on merits but the final dispositional outcome is not captured in the available preview.

3. Jayashree Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner St

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 17 June 2026
Sections engaged: 17(5), 2(63), 39, 50, 73, 74, 74A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In WP No. 19835 of 2026, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 12.02.2025 (GSTIN 33ASFPK8957K1Z7/2020-21) that was uploaded in "Additional Notices and Orders" on the GST Portal; the challenge was directed primarily at the imposition of interest. Per the source preview, counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a discrepancy between the Input Tax Credit reflected in the GSTR-3B return and the GSTR-2A auto-populated return, and argued that any liability arising from such a discrepancy could not be characterised as wrongful availment; the final order is not reproduced in the available preview.

4. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike vs M/S Pmj Constructions

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 15 June 2026
Sections engaged: 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as Writ Appeal No. 1478 of 2025 (LB-TAX) under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the impugned orders dated 25.07.2025; the appellants are Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and two of its Executive Engineers, and the respondent is M/s PMJ Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The source preview is confined to the cause-title, parties, and prayer; no substantive reasoning on the merits is discernible from the available preview.

5. Eta General Pvt Ltd vs Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 12 June 2026
Sections engaged: 13, 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as OSA(CAD) No. 1 of 2024 as a Memorandum of Grounds of Original Side Appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directed against an order dated 29.09.2023 made in Application No. 5041 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No. 70 of 2022. Per the source preview, the appellant is the defendant in the underlying suit, and the appeal was reserved on 02.06.2026 before being decided on 12.06.2026; no dispositional holding is captured in the available preview.

6. M/S.Gayathri Enterprises vs The Joint Commissioner, Appeals-Ii

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 9 June 2026
Sections engaged: 107(1), 112, 122(2)(b), 50, 74
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In Writ Petition No. 8187 of 2026, the petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 24.10.2024, an order-in-original dated 02.01.2025 (with Form GST DRC-07 summary of the same date) for tax period 2020-21, and an order-in-appeal dated 31.12.2025, on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and non-consideration of documents submitted by the petitioner. Per the source preview, the adjudicating authority by the impugned order-in-original confirmed a demand of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) of Rs. 1,06,40,912/- along with applicable interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017, and penalty of the equivalent amount under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act; the court's final direction is not captured in the available preview.

7. Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Reliance Infrastructure Limited

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1), 143(3), 154, 41, 50, 74
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter was heard before ITAT Mumbai, 'D' Bench, for Assessment Year 2021-22 (PAN AACCR7446Q), with the date of hearing being 07.04.2026 and the date of pronouncement being 08.06.2026. Per the source preview, the assessee company had filed its original return of income on 11.03.2022 declaring a business loss of Rs. 1,249.98 crores; during the relevant previous year the assessee had transferred a depreciable capital asset and computed capital gain therefrom in accordance with the provisions of section 50 at Rs. 752.34 crores, and had also incurred a long-term capital loss of Rs. 257.25 crores and disclosed income from other sources at Rs. 65.40 crores. The full dispositional order is not reproduced in the available preview.

8. K.Pitchaipandi vs The Deputy State Tax Officer -1

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: 16(1), 17(5), 50, 73
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P(MD) No. 15387 of 2026) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, challenging an impugned order in GSTIN Ref No. 33CIYPP0255J1ZS/2021-22 dated 29.12.2025, praying for quashing on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions. Per the source preview, the impugned order (described internally as dated 12.12.2025) was an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and the assessment was made rejecting the representation dated 27.12.2025 on the basis that the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities provided; the court's final disposition is not captured in the available preview.

9. M/S.M Kasiviswanathan vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 4 June 2026
Sections engaged: 50, 74
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(MD) No. 14859 of 2026) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, challenging an impugned order dated 02.01.2025 (GSTIN 33AULPK1021A1ZH/2020-21), praying for quashing on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions. Per the source preview, the impugned order was passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and the assessment was made ex-parte because the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities provided; the court's final direction is not captured in the available preview.

10. Santra Devi vs Santosh Kaushik & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 30 May 2026
Sections engaged: 50, 151
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The suit (CS(OS) 188/2024 with I.A. 31975/2024) was filed before the Delhi High Court seeking partition, declaration, and permanent injunction in relation to property forming part of Khasra nos. 936/1, 936/2, and 941/1 situated at Village Siraspur, Delhi-110042, owned by Late Sh. Brahm Dutt; the case was reserved on 06.04.2026 and pronounced on 30.05.2026. Per the source preview, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 seeking rejection of the plaint; the plaintiff had stated on 28.10.2024 that they did not wish to file a reply to the said application, and accordingly no reply was filed. The substantive ruling on the application is not reproduced in the available preview.

11. Robert Sengozi vs Custom T 3 Igi Airport New Delhi

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 29 May 2026
Sections engaged: 37, 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (Bail Appln. 4669/2025 with Crl.M.A. 36000/2025) was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Delhi High Court, reserved on 07.05.2026 and pronounced on 29.05.2026. Per the source preview, the applicant — a Ugandan national — was intercepted on 04.02.2022 at IGI Airport while attempting to exit through the Green Channel, and was served notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the presence of independent panch/witnesses; during further inquiry the applicant voluntarily admitted to having ingested capsules containing narcotic substances. The court's final decision on the bail application is not captured in the available preview.

12. Rishu Shree vs The Union Of India Through Its

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 18 May 2026
Sections engaged: 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition was filed as Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2942 of 2025 (arising out of PS Case No. 13/2025, Thana — ECIR Government Official, District Patna) before the Patna High Court, with respondents including the Union of India through the Secretary, Legislative Department, the Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director (Patna Zonal Office), named officers of the Directorate of Enforcement, and the State of Bihar through the Superintendent of Police, Special Vigilance Unit. The source preview is confined to the cause-title and party details; no substantive facts or interim/final orders are discernible from the available preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Statutory heterogeneity of "Section 50": Across these twelve cases, "Section 50" is not invoked under a single statute. It appears as Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (case 7 — capital gains on depreciable assets), Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 (cases 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 — interest on delayed tax payment), Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (case 5 — appellate jurisdiction over foreign award enforcement), Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (case 11 — search procedure), Section 50 of the CPC/Transfer of Property Act context (case 10 — civil partition), and further mixed or unclear contexts (cases 1, 4, 12). Researchers must confirm the governing statute before treating any entry as relevant to their matter.
Dominance of GST/indirect-tax writ petitions: A substantial portion of the rulings (cases 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and to some extent 4) are writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed before High Courts challenging assessment orders issued under the TNGST Act or CGST Act, predominantly for tax periods 2020-21 and 2021-22. This reflects a continuing pattern of taxpayers seeking constitutional remedies against ex-parte or allegedly procedurally defective GST assessments.
Ex-parte and natural-justice challenges: In cases 8 and 9, the source previews explicitly state that the impugned assessment orders were passed either because the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities provided, or on an ex-parte basis. In case 6, the petitioner's grievance expressly included non-consideration of documents submitted even at the appellate stage. This recurring ground — violation of the opportunity-to-be-heard principle — appears across multiple GST-related writ petitions in this set.
GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A discrepancy as a substantive issue: In case 3 (Jayashree Enterprises), the source preview specifically identifies a discrepancy between Input Tax Credit reflected in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A as the factual substratum, with counsel arguing that liability arising from such a discrepancy cannot be characterised as wrongful availment. This ITC-reconciliation issue is a recurrent theme in GST litigation visible across multiple writ petitions in the broader corpus.
Limited substantive extractability from source previews: Across all twelve entries, no final dispositional outcome is captured in the available source preview; every case records "Outcome not specified in source." This is a structural limitation of the present dataset — the previews reflect cause-titles, procedural prayers, and early paragraphs of orders, not operative dispositive paragraphs. Researchers should treat this compilation as a first-pass identification index and retrieve full judgments before drawing any conclusions about outcomes.

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a first-pass identification tool, not a substitute for primary source research. Before relying on any entry above, retrieve the full text of the judgment from the official court portal (e.g., mhc.tn.gov.in/judis, indiankanoon.org, or the relevant High Court's official website) or from a primary legal database. The source previews reproduced here are truncated and may not reflect operative portions, obiter observations, or the court's final directions. Always read the complete judgment, including any subsequent orders in the same matter.

Verify the current status of each case before citing it. Many of the rulings indexed here are recent High Court or ITAT orders that may be subject to appeal, review, or stay by a superior court or the same court. Check whether a Special Leave Petition, Letters Patent Appeal, or rectification application has been filed subsequent to the date of the order. Also confirm whether any CBDT or CBIC circular, instruction, or notification has been issued that bears on the statutory provision at issue, since administrative guidance may supplement or clarify the legal position established by a court.

Pay careful attention to the governing statute before using any entry in the "Section 50" context. As noted under the patterns above, the twelve cases span at least five different statutory instruments. A ruling on Section 50 of the CGST Act on the calculation of interest has no precedential bearing on Section 50 of the Income Tax Act on depreciable-asset capital gains, and vice versa. Similarly, a ruling on Section 50 of the NDPS Act in a criminal bail matter is entirely distinct from civil or tax jurisprudence. Confirm the applicable statute and check that the facts of the judgment are analogous to the matter being researched before treating any entry as persuasive authority.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 50 Across Tax Regimes: 12 Indian Court Rulings (2026)