“ICDS”

ICDS & AccountingSection 145(2)Section 145(2)865 judgments

The decision most relied on for ICDS is ICDS Ltd. v. CIT (350 ITR 527), cited in 280 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on ICDS

350 ITR 527 · 2013 · Supreme Court

An assessee engaged in the business of hire purchase or leasing, being the lessor, is entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out, even if the assets are registered in the name of the lessee and used by the lessee.

SB) in Indusind Bank Ltd. v. ADIT

19 Taxmann.com 173 · 2012 · Reported

citing judgments

A Special Bench decision of the Tribunal rendered prior to a Supreme Court decision is subordinate to the Supreme Court ruling.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT

10 SCC 529 · Reported

citing judgments

The Supreme Court remands a matter when an assessee is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine individuals whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.

ICDS Limited v. CIT (

69 Taxmann.com 317 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

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.

Manipal Finance Corporation Limited v. ACTT Circle-1 Udupi

49 Taxmann.com 353 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

This case discusses the allowability of depreciation on leased assets in finance leases, a matter that has been addressed by the Supreme Court in ICDS Ltd vs CIT.

CIT v. G Narasimhan

236 ITR 327 · 1999 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Accumulated profits for the purpose of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) are to be computed in accordance with the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) rather than opening balances as per Indian GAAP. This case also touches upon the definition of 'transfer' under section 2(47).

Chamber of Tax Consultants & Anr. v. UOI

87 Taxmann.com 92 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The Delhi High Court held that Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) notified under Section 145(2) were ultra vires the provisions of the Income Tax Act, as they exceeded delegated legislative power. Subsequently, Section 43CB was introduced to provide statutory backing for certain ICDS provisions, such as those related to construction contracts using the percentage of completion method.

Judgments citing ICDS

M/S. Religare Capital Markets Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 753/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 68Section 92Section 92B

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in attributing interest aggregating to Rs. 17,986,329 paid on ICDs taken by the assessee to the investment made by it in Religare Capital Markets International (Mauritius) Limited ("RCMI(M)") under section ... That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in holding the ICDs, in relation to which interest of Rs 17,986,329 has been paid by the assessee, has been used by it for creation or purchase of assets which have not been

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Msn Organics Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 395/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

payments made in excess of the purchases within the group companies and that the same were not given as “Inter-Corporate Deposits” (ICDs). Further, the A.O. noticed that the advances received by the assessee company from M/s. Maithri Laboratories Pvt. Ltd (supra) aggregating

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 2052/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 1688/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

ITA 9080/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Pooja Kedia, Jaipuir

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1321/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

assessments and thereby he has confirmed the addition. As is evident from the material placed on record that the assessee has accepted the ICDs from these two companies by account payee cheque. These loans have been repaid by account payee cheque. The relevant details showing the receipt and payment were

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Chennai

ITA 3084/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in directing the AO to verify the notional gain on foreign Currency Transitional Reserve (FCTR) which was correctly offered to tax as per ICDS VI. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in directing the AO to verify the sale ... erred in directing the AO to verify the notional gain on foreign Currency Transitional Reserve (FCTR) which was correctly offered to tax as per ICDS VI. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in directing the AO to verify the sale

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Chennai

ITA 3083/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 263

ACIT, Cir-1(1), Rajkot vs. Shri Rajkot District Co Operative Bank Ltd, Rajkot

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

Accountants Act, 1949, or b. Those notified under Section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act (i.e., the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards, or ICDS). In no situation can accounting standards formulated by the Institute of Cost Accountants of India supersede the statutory provisions of the Income

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1375/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Blue Star Diamonds Pvt Ltd Ce-9010,9013, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Room No.568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, 400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aadcb6475E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 14ASection 250

that the Assessee had not only failed to Justify the omission in disclosure of inventory in the Tax Audit Report as required under the ICDS-II but also failed to corroborate the valuation of closing stock in the course of assessment proceedings? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances ... CASS and the notices under section 143(2) was issued by identifying that claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BB. ICDs and adjustment and capital gains / income on sale of property. Thereafter, the assessment was completed; but Ld.AO found that the assesse is maintaining low profit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Tirupur, Tirupur vs. Armstront Knitting Mills, Tirupur

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

ITA 1429/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1429/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Suraj Nahar, CA

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

cash incentive etc., mentioned in this sub section and whether it falls under the definition of income. In addition to this impact of ICDS notified vide dated 31.03.2015 were also discussed. After elaborate discussion and considering decisions regarding subsidy given by Hon’ble Apex court in case ... capital receipt and not taxable. Therefore, in view of jurisdictional ITAT decision even after the amendment by Finance :- 5 -: Act, 2016 and notification of ICDS the amount added by AO CPC is deleted. Ground no. 2 is allowed. AO is directed to reduce the income of the appellant by Rs.71493213

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Tirupur, Tiruppur vs. Armstrong Knitting Mills, Tirupur

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

ITA 1422/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1422/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Suraj Nahar, CA

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

cash incentive etc., mentioned in this sub section and whether it falls under the definition of income. In addition to this impact of ICDS notified vide dated 31.03.2015 were also discussed. After elaborate discussion and considering decisions regarding subsidy given by Hon’ble Apex court in case ... capital receipt and not taxable. Therefore, in view of jurisdictional ITAT decision even after the amendment by Finance :- 5 -: Act, 2016 and notification of ICDS the amount added by AO CPC is deleted. Ground no. 1 & 3 are allowed. AO is directed to reduce the income of the appellant

Dosti Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

treatment laid down in Guidance Note for accounting of Real Estate Transactions & Accounting Standard 2 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ICDS notified by Central Government and without appreciating the fact that same is allowable u/s. 37(1). c. Without prejudice to the above and without admitting ... relating to 'Selling in distribution expenditure' are to be recognized as expenses in the period in which they are incurred. Even as per ICDS-11, the selling cost have to recognize as expenses. The selling cost is not considered as part of construction cost and development cost. 15. Further

Amar Brothers Global P.Ltd, Kanpur vs. AO Circle-1(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 175/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.175/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amar Brothers Global Pvt Ltd V. Dcit Circle-2(1)(1) 87/112, Kalpi Road, Kanpur- Vaibhav Bhawan, 802003. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. Pan:Aaica6776A अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 29 07 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 37

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Because the notice u/s 143(2) dated 23.09.2019 by Assessment Unit, NeAC for scrutiny of ICDS Compliance and Adjustment and not for scrutiny of assessment as a whole, the assessment framed by NeAC, making disallowances other than ICDS Compliance and Adjustment

Patel Infrastructure Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT (Central), Surat, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

Gobarbhai Patel Foundation". The assessee submitted before Principal CIT that the provision for expected credit loss was already added back in the return through ICDS adjustments and that a net increase in income of ₹1,07,53,745/- was duly reported and offered for taxation under 'Other Information ... Supporting documentation such as the tax audit report, additional ICDS notes, and return of income were submitted to substantiate this position. It was contended that the proposed disallowance under revision proceedings was factually incorrect as no deduction had been claimed for this provision while computing taxable income. However, the PCIT

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

convertible debentures (NCD in short) is a provision and any provision cannot be allowed, is not correct for the reason that as per ‘ICDS 1 – accounting Policies’ accrual of expenses is a fundamental accounting principle and the assessee has rightly provided for accrued interest expense which is an expenditure allowed

Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 223/VIZ/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8O

DEPB benefits are derived from the exports made by the assessee. Further he also stated that as per the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) with respect to inventories, it states that purchase price includes duties and taxes and other expenditure directly attributable to the acquisition of material and this ... reasons, where the Page. No 4 LT.A.No.223/VIZ/2023 Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited = judgment is based on the Accounting Standards-2 and not as per ICDS—2 and hence cannot be applied to the assessee’s case. In his written submissions he placed reliance on the following decisions:- i. Saraf Seasoning

Chandra Bros., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1572/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 250Section 44A

then Unilateral and thus, Asymmetrical application of a different method of Valuation, i.e., Average Cost Method, prescribed under Income Computation and Disclosure Standards-II (ICDS-II)/ Sec. 145(2), amounting to Rs.11467070.00 to the Closing Stock alone, would lead to distorted, fictional and unrealized Income. (Issue: Confirmation of Addition ... closing stock valuation is to be subjected to principles of valuation i.e., Weighted Average Cost Method/WACM of Valuation, prescribed by ICDS-II/Section 145(2), for the sake of consistency, evenness and prevention of origin of any fictional income, therefrom, the Opening Stock, valued on LIFO basis, would call

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Elegant Builders and Developers, Bangalore

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

ITA 1679/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya K. K., Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

prior to AY 2018-19. The assessee stated that the AO violated the principles laid down in the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards-III (ICDS) that has been devised u/s 145(2) of the I.T. Act and has also disregarded the provisions of Accounting Standard ... ICDS-III. the contract revenue and expense should be recognized as revenue and expense based on the stage of completion of the contract. Accordingly, the revenue has to be determined by the percentage of completion method. The appellant stated that contrary to the ICDS-III guidelines issued

M/S. Elegant Builders and Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1240/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya K. K., Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)