← 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-22(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Sambhav Shelter, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 811/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.811/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito-22(3)(6) बिधम/ Sambhav Shelter, Room No.206, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, V 55, Dr E Moses Road Mumbai-400012. Worli Next To Furniturewala Showroom, Mumbai-400018. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abgfs8321M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Ganensh Rakh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.01.2023 For The Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,73,36,141/- Made By The Ao After Rejecting The Books Of Account Of The Assessee & Estimating The Profit @ 8% Of The Revenue Recognized.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ganensh Rakh (Sr. AR)
Section 145(3)

claimed closing stock of Rs.43,49,47,272/- whereas has claimed closing stock of Rs.1,14,63,282/- as per disclosure as per ICDS in audit report. Thus, according to the AO, the stock was not maintained properly and the return of income filed by the assessee cannot be accepted ... that it had maintained stock records and not able to reconcile the quantities of the sale as well as the disclosure as per the ICDS to the tune of Rs.1,14,63,282/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has reversed the action of the AO and accepted the books

Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 194/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ib, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacca2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bikram Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax—Raipur-1 Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre (Neac) On 01.03.2021 As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As The Order Was Passed Without Making Any Enquiry On The Issues Of Applicability Of Section 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961. The Assessment Order Passed By The Neac Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Therefore The Order U/S 263 Passed By The Ld. Cit Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Uncalled. 2. The Assessee Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801ASection 80I

Revised Return & Claim of Refund iii. Refund Claim iv. Duty Drawback v. Deduction Claimed for Industrial Undertaking u/s 801A /80IAB /80IAC /IB/IC/IBA/801D/801E/10A/10AA vi. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment vii. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A. 3. The assessee company had filed its return of income declaring total income

M/S. Maheshwari Logistics Private Limited, Vapi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 377/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Shed No.A2-3/2 Mll House, Vs. Opp. Upl, 1St Phase, Gidc, Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Vapi, Valsad-396195 Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad- 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 8332 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

attached as Annexure C had required for complete details with respect to issues identified for opening of scrutiny which were a. Refund clam b. ICDS compliance and Adjustment From the assessment records it can be verified that we had duly provided all the required information which included the complete financial ... paper book and stated that the scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) dated 29.09.2019 was issued for “limited scrutiny purpose” to verify “refund claimed and ICDS compliance and adjustment”. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has framed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 11.02.2021. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that

Apm Industries Ltd, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. PoddarFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(7)

notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 23/09/2019. As per the assessment order, the main issues for examination were – (i) Duty Drawback (ii) ICDS compliance and adjustment and (iii) disallowance u/s 40A(7) (gratuity provision). During the course of assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) along with query letter ... case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under E-assessment scheme, 2019 on issue of verification of (1) Duty Draw Back (2) ICDS compliance adjustment (3) Disallowance u/s. 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) and the assessment was completed by National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (NeAC) u/s. 143(3) read