“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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Aadhaar Wholesale Trading and Distribution Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2646/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri, S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra &

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI, S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Aadhaar Wholesale Trading and Distribution Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2635/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri, S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra &

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI, S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

Ascendas It Park (Chennai) Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 682/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 682/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ascendas It Park (Chennai) The Principal Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Pinnacle Building, 1St Floor, Range-1, International Tech Park, Chennai – 34. Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan: Aaeca 7979D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051515676(1) Dated 28.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.01.2021. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Pcit Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Framed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 31.01.2021. The Pcit Has Revised The Assessment In Regard To Following Two Issues:- (I) Loss On Sale Of Fixed Assets At Rs.11,02,001/- (Ii) Provision For Doubtful Debts At Rs.31,46,538/-

For Appellant: Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

following issues:- i. Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP ii. Deduction claimed for industrial undertaking u/s.80IA/80IAB/80IAC/IB/IC/IBA/80ID/89IE/10A/10AA iii. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment iv. Income from House Property and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act vide order dated 31.01.20121 accepting

Sampark Management Cousultancy LLP, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sampark Management Vs. Pr.Cit, Noida, Consultancy Llp, Noida. A-178, Sector – 40, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301. Pan Acsfs9969E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reasons, namely, reduction in profit due to application of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (“ICDS”); excess claim of exemption of dividend income; large increase in unsecured loans during the year; large refund claimed out of advance tax. During the course of assessment ... conclusion that –i) contrary to what is mentioned in the CASS reason there is in fact increase in the taxable profit on account of ICDS and not reduction in profit; ii) out of total accrued income of Rs. 8,93,38,723/- from dividend from shares and mutual funds

DCIT, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad vs. Tpsc(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 225/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

profits expected to arise on other contracts which are segmented as explained. 20. Learned AR further submitted that as per para 22.2 of ICDS-III, on construction contracts contract revenue and cost associated with the P a g e 13 | 15 ITA-TP No. 225/Hyd/2022 construction contract, which was commenced ... submitted that the assessee did not bring it to the notice of the learned DRP about the stipulation in para 22.2 of the ICDS-III and therefore the learned DRP did not have any opportunity to examine the issue in the light of the stipulation under ICDS

DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2739/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

return of the assessee was subsequently selected for scrutiny in CASS on the aforesaid issues of (i) Unsecured Loans, (ii) ICDS Compliance and adjustment and (iii) Details of assets and liabilities. 6. During the year, the assessee received unsecured loan of Rs. Rs. 13,85,15,386/- and paid interest

Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu vs. ACIT, Centyral Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2488/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Ropar District Co-Operative Union Limited, Mohali vs. PCIT, Chandigar-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 269USection 53A

processed by the CPC, determining its income at Rs.11,24,08,940/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny regarding the issue of ICDS Compliance and Adjustment. Vide order dated 19.02.2021, passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, the total income

Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2018-19 Gsp Crop Science Pvt.Ltd. The Principal Cit, 404, Lalita Complex Vs Ahmedabad-1 Rasal Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad City Ahmedabad – 380 009, Gujarat Pan: Aaacg 7984 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms.Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-1. [“Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Holding That Rs.9,98,678/- Is Required To Be Disallowed U/S 14A Of The Act. Gsp Crop Science Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Pr.Cit Asst.Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 80J

case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issues, such as, expenditure of personal nature, refund claim, duty draw-back, ICDS compliance & adjustment, deduction on account of donation for scientific research and expenditure by way of penalty or fine for violation of any law. The assessment was completed u/s.143

M/S. Rdc Ventures, Mumbai vs. PCIT-27, Mumbai

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

ITA 1915/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

find that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has filed copies of audited profit and loss account, balance sheet audit reports, ICDS notes and computation as placed on page no. 1 to 32 of the paper book filed during the course of appellate proceedings. On perusal ... assessee during the course of assessment proceedings in form 3CB and noticed that under the head significant accounting policies and disclosures as per ICDS on page no. 26 of the audit report assessee at Serial No. 2 under the head Revenue Recognition reported as under: “a. During the year

DCIT Central Circle, Karnal vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt Ltd, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4808/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, C/O Nk Jain Adv. Sec-12, Karnal, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani Haryana Pin 132001 Haryana Pin 127021 Pan Aadcr4203L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

That Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions (Revised 2012) duly recognizes application of AS-9 in respect of real estate developer also ICDS-III is not applicable in respect of real estate developer. vi) Income Computation and Disclosure standards' (ICDS) notified by Central Government in exercise of power ... assessee has neither conflicted Guidance note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions (Revised 2012) while following Project Completion Method for revenue recognition nor ICDS-III is applicable to the assessee. These contentions of the assessee could not be refuted by the Revenue. 11. The Ld. DR mentioned the decision

Ntt Global Data Centers & Cloud Infrastructure India Private Limited (Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT-10 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2784/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blentt Global Data Centers & Cloud V. National E-Assessment Centre Infrastructure India Private Limited {Now Known As National {Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Faceless Appeal Centre} Private Limited} Delhi 7Th Floor, Hiranandani Business Park Sakinaka S.O., Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aaccn2366D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Shri Arpit Doshi & Ms. Payal Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 37(1)

Circular No. 2 dated 9-2-2001 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Supreme Court decision in case of ICDS Ltd v. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 527 (SC). Further submitted that all the finance lease agreements and related documents were available before the Assessing Officer ... debate of determination of ownership under finance lease was put to rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ICDS Ltd v. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 527 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointing out specific clauses in the finance lease agreement held the lessor

National Securities Depository Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 1918/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenational Securities Depository Limited V. Pr.Cit-8 4Th Floor, A-Wing Room No. 611, 6Th Floor Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aadcn9802F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Jeet Kamdae Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43B

though the assessment was selected to verify the issues relating to (i) Claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in schedule BP, (ii) ICDS Compliance and Adjustment and (iii) Expenses incurred for Earning exempt income, while verifying the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

Madhav Krg Ltd, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle Patiala, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the rejection of application under Section 154 by the AO on account of adjustment on account of ICDS amounting to Rs. 3,52,475/-. 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company filed its return of income ... Subsequently, a communication dt. 03/09/2019 was received from CPC Portal for proposed adjustment of Rs. 3,52,475/- on account of ICDS. 2.1 In response, the assessee company in its submission dt. 30/09/2021 submitted that the said amount of Rs. 3,52,475/- was allowable during the current year