← 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

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1571/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

entire gain of Rs.59.55 crores is being claimed as non-monetary item and not offered for taxation. Moreover, as per Para 9 of ICDS, the amount recognised of Rs.105.62 as on the last date of the year ending 31.03.2016 in FCTR account is also required to be treated as income ... account but not offered to tax, (ii) in respect of the taxability of the amount recognised of Rs.105.62 crores as per Para 9 of ICDS, as on the last date of the year ending 31.03.2016 in FCTR account, especially the monetary amount of Rs.39.21 crores and (iv) in respect

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1570/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

entire gain of Rs.59.55 crores is being claimed as non-monetary item and not offered for taxation. Moreover, as per Para 9 of ICDS, the amount recognised of Rs.105.62 as on the last date of the year ending 31.03.2016 in FCTR account is also required to be treated as income ... account but not offered to tax, (ii) in respect of the taxability of the amount recognised of Rs.105.62 crores as per Para 9 of ICDS, as on the last date of the year ending 31.03.2016 in FCTR account, especially the monetary amount of Rs.39.21 crores and (iv) in respect

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1569/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1569/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 41(1)

Schedule BP - Exports / Imports - High creditors / Liabilities (BL06) - Depreciation claim - Default in TDS - Loss from currency fluctuations - Investment / Advances / Loans - Business Loss - Refund Claim - ICDS Compliance and Adjustment - Taxability of business liability written off u/s.41 or any other section(BL07) - Expenses incurred for earning exempt income - Excess contribution to provident ... Appreciation / Depreciation on securities: The Assessee had submitted that the claim was made in accordance with binding Income Computation and Disclosures Standards- VIII (ICDS) relating to securities which requires the amount provided in accordance with RBI guidelines to be allowed as a deduction which is reproduced in page

ACIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Kamdhenu Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Acit, Circle-13(1), Vs. M/S Kamdhenu Limited, New Delhi L-311, Khasra No. 724, Street No. 7, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi – 110 037. (Pan : Aaack7155M) Co No.24/Del/2024 (In Ita No.1311/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Kamdhenu Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 13(1), L-311, Khasra No. 724, New Delhi Street No. 7, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi – 110 037 (Pan : Aaack7155M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Garg, Ca, Shri Udyan Garg, Ca, Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate Shri Harish Aggarwal, Cfo Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Order : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 145(2)Section 145(3)

selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verification of issues, like, claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP, stock valuation, ICDS compliance and adjustment. Accordingly, notices under section 143 (2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued ... audit report, the auditor has reported that there is no change in the valuation method applied during the year as per the provisions of ICDS-II Valuation of inventories notified u/s 145(2) of the Act. Accordingly, assessee was asked to submit details as per the tabular format given