← All Phrases

“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

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT
350 ITR 527 · 2013 · Supreme Court
280
citing judgments

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
28
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
24
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
24
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
19
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
15
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
10
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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji vs. Navdurga Yarns LLP, Ichalkaranji

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1287/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1287/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Ichalkaranji अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Navdurga Yarns Llp, 12/537/1, Near Hotel Man, Vs. Shahu Corner, Ichalkaranji-416115 Pan : Aapfn7837F प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Bhuvnesh V. Kankani Shri Amol Khairnar 07-11-2024 31-01-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.04.2024 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara [“Addl./Jcit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year ("Ay") 2022-23. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Firm. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 22.10.2022 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,74,64,880/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act"). An Intimation Order Dated 07.06.2023 Was Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Cpc Bengaluru (“Ao”) Assessing Total Income At Rs.13,01,40,970/- & Raising A Demand Of Rs.4,16,78,170/-. The Ld. Ao Made An Addition Of Rs.10,26,76,090/- Under The Head, “Increase In Profit Or Decrease In Loss On Account Of Icds Adjustments & Deviation In Method Of Valuation Of Stock (Column 3A + 4D Of Part A-Oi)”. 3. Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Ao Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, The Assessee Appealed Before The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A). Before The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), The Assessee Submitted That The Books Of Account Of The Assessee Were Audited As Required Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act & The Audit Report Was Submitted Electronically By The Assessee. The 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 145A

made an addition of Rs.10,26,76,090/- under the head, “Increase in profit or decrease in loss on account of ICDS adjustments and deviation in method of valuation of stock (Column 3a + 4d of Part A-OI)”. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO passed ... audit report was submitted electronically by the assessee. The 2 ITA No.1287/PUN/2024, AY 2022-23 auditor has given intimation regarding ICDS adjustment in Column 14 of audit report. The Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs.10,26,76,090/-. However no such adjustment has been reported by the auditor

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

reduced from taxable income towards Ind AS adjustment and the same has been reported in Form 3CD, column 13(e) under ICDS IV adjustment. However, as seen from the Profit & Loss account, only an amount of Rs.1,98,00,000/- was debited towards other comprehensive income for the year ... erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the issue of deduction allowed towards adjustment made under ICDS for Rs.10.07 crores and also deduction allowed towards amortization u/s 37(1) of the Act for Rs.85.35 crores, as against Rs.73.93 crores, because the Assessing

Sew Krishnagar Baharampore Highways Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.193/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sew Krishnagar Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1) Baharampore Highways Hyderabad Limited Hyderabad [Pan :Aapcs5143Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad & Shri K.Rajendra Kumar, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 9 Days. It Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining Reasons Thereof. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Having Regard To The Reasons Given In The Petition, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad &For Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 154Section 21Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(viii)

borrowed from the banks and financial institutions are directly attributable to the construction of highway and the same was under construction as per ICDS-IX notified u/s 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). This fact has been reported by the tax auditor 3 ITA 193/Hyd/2024 ... crores in the P&L account and the entire interest expenditure has been disallowed and added back to the total income, in accordance with ICDS-IX notified u/s 145(2) of the Act. However, the AO/CPC once again disallowed and added back the interest expenditure of Rs.137.82 crores