ICDS Limited v. CIT (

69 Taxmann.com 317High Court2016#4915 most cited

What is ICDS Limited v. CIT ( authority for?

In lease transactions, only the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation, regardless of whether the lease is a finance lease or an operating lease. This is because the substantial risks and rewards of ownership are not transferred to the lessee.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ICDS Limited v. CIT · lessor depreciation · lessee depreciation · finance lease · operating lease · Section 37 · Section 32 · depreciation entitlement · lease rental · Minda Corporation

Also reported as

360 ITR 362

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

icdssection 92bmost appropriate methodtransfer pricing adjustmenttnmmsection 32section 92revenue expenditureinternational transactioncapital expendituresection 37(1)section 37

Judgments citing ICDS Limited v. CIT (

Sanjay G Vadodaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4419/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Sanjay G. Vadodaria, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 29/B Roop Kamal 426, S.V. 25(3)(4), Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400067 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepv9502A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. Zarna P. Chandwani & Mr. Pradeep Chandwani याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

Section 32oSection 42

…njay G. Vadodaria 2.5. The ratio laid down in ICDS Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC), Prkash Leasing Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 179 (Karn.), CIT vs Biad Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 413 (Raj.), CIT vs H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 362 (Del.), CIT vs Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 359 (Bom.), CIT vs Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 637 (Del.), supports the case of the assessee. Even otherwise, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC), wherein, it was held that when two views are possible…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee's appeal as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…question in the negative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 26 IT(T.P)A Nos.191 & 569/Bang/2015 Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. Further the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Minda Corporation Limited Vs. DCIT (2016) 69 Taxmann.com 317 (Delhi-Trib.) has dealt with an identical issue in paras 5.1 to 5.6 as under : “ 5.1 After having heard rival submissions, we are of the view that AS-19 on accounting for "Leases" issued by the ICAI is only applicable for accounting the lease transaction in the books of accounts. It is a settled law that treatment in the books of accounts…

Kedia Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Kedia Shares & Stock Acit, Brokers Limited, Circle-4(3), बनाम/ 418, Commerce House, Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. 140, Nagindas Master Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400023 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaack2528E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32oSection 42

…of the assessee. 2.5. The ratio laid down in ICDS Ltd. Vs CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC), Prkash Leasing Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 356 ITR 179 (Karn.), CIT vs Biad Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 413 (Raj.), CIT vs H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 362 (Del.), CIT vs Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 359 (Bom.), CIT vs Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 637 (Del.), supports the case of the assessee. Even otherwise, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC), wherein, it was held that when two views are possible…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. Shri. G. Balraj, Mangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 35/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri G.Balraj, Pwd Contractor, 6-112-81, Nethravathi Nagar Layout, Naagori, Kankanady, Mangalore-575002. … Respondent Pan:Abzpb5464B

For Appellant: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri G.Balraj, PWD Contractor, 6-112-81, Nethravathi Nagar Layout, Naagori, Kankanady, Mangalore-575002. … Respondent PAN:ABZPB5464B Appellant by: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCIT. Respondent by: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA. Date of hearing : 22/06/2015 Date of pronouncement: 30/06/2015 O R D E R Per Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM: This appeal by the revenue is against the order of the CIT(A), Mysore, dated…