← 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

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nafac

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1493/CHNY/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1493/Chny/2023 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 77, Potti Patti Plaza, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 034. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-2761-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Easwar (Jcit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35(1)(iv)

actually incurred any expenditure directly or indirectly far earning the exempt income. 6. The Appellant objects to the addition on account of ICDS adjustments based on draft particulars given by Appellant during assessment as against correct details in memo, ITR and 3CD. The Appellant requests that an opportunity be given ... explain the same. As is evident, three issues fall for our consideration i.e., (i) Disallowance of R & D expenditure; (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A; (iii) ICDS adjustments. 2. Having heard rival submissions, the same are disposed-off as under. The assessee is stated to be engaged in manufacture and sale

K K Infrabuild, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 507/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 K.K. Infrabuild The Income Tax Officer 702, Gunjan Tower Vs Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Synergy House Vadodara Subhanpura, Gorwa Vadodra – 390 023 Gujarat Pan: Aaqfk 9998 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

disallowance amounting to Rs.14,92,312/-. It is submitted that the appellant recognises revenue on a percentage completion basis by following AS - 7/ ICDS - Ill and such depreciation so disallowed is included while calculating the percentage completion and unbilled revenue. Hence, it is prayed to that Ld. A.O be directed ... ld.counsel for the assessee further argued that since the assessee is following percentage completion method, the profit is calculated according to the ICDS III and AS -7 and, therefore, there is a need to recompute the revenue to be recognized and profit accordingly and, therefore, requested to refer the matter

ACIT Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Kiran Infertility Centre Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 238/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-An Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.238/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kiran Infertility Income Tax, Centre (P) Ltd Central Circle 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabck6053F (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2024 आदेश/Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.03.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing Medical Services In Connection With Infertility Among Women/Men & Surrogacy Treatment & Is Deriving Income From Business & Other Sources. A Search & Page 1 Of 30

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)

computation of income, the assessee has shown income of Rs 45,90,235/ being on account of "ICDS effect" and after considering adjustments on account of depreciation etc. the net income from business is shown at Rs 6,28,71,957/-. 5. From the details furnished by the assessee ... being advances from surrogacy clients as income of the year. 15. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.55,46,136/- under ICDS in respect of 54 cases by estimating the income @ 15% on 3,69,74,242/- on the ground that the assessee itself has declared income under ICDS

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anthem Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 215/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Anthem Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 04, 1St Floor, Jagriti Enclave, Circle-2(2), New Delhi. Vikas Marg Extn., New Delhi. Pan: Aaica7355D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.10.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.273/19-20/Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Acit, Circle 2(2), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Records. Ld. Ar Has Relied The Order Of Co- Ordinate Bench In The Case Of Assessee For Ay 2014-15, In Ita No. 5676/Del/2017 To Contend That The Issue Is Covered In Favour Of Assessee By The Order Dated 29/10/2021. Ld. Dr Could Not Dispute This Factual Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145

mandatory for the appellant to follow POCM which is evident from the fact that the CBDT has issued Draft Income Computation And Disclosure Standard (ICDS) of Real Estate Transactions in May 2017 for discussion wherein it has been proposed to provide for recognition of revenue in real estate transaction based ... percentage of completion method. This ICDS proposal is only at discussion stage and has not been finalized as yet, therefore, it is not mandatory for the appellant to follow percentage of completion method in AY. 2014-15. It is also seen that Section 145 has not prescribed any such conditions

Hoogly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1474/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1474/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hoogly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata C/O. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Vs 15, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaach7473B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Sundaram, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 20/11/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 06/09/2022 Relevant To Assessment Year 2020-21 Framed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Company Fully Owned By The Government Of India & Is A Public Sector Undertaking Carrying On The Business Of Building & Repair Of Ships & Boats. For The Year Under Consideration, E-Return Was Furnished On 27/01/2021 Which Was Subsequently Revised On 01/02/2021 Declaring Income Of Rs.1,53,68,81,820/-. After Serving Of Valid Notice U/S 143(2) & 142 (1)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Sundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35DSection 40

grant was Rs.8,34,82,032/-. We further notice that the assessee in order to comply to the Income-tax Computation and Disclosure Standard (ICDS-VII) which relates to Government grants, and for the purpose of matching concept has shown the income tax liability paid during the year