← 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

Vivan Commercial LLP, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 562/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos. 561 & 562/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 M/S. Vivan Commercial Llp The Dcit, Cc-1, R K World Tower, Sheetal Park, 150 Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, बनाम/ Ft Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 M G Road, Rajkot - 360001 Vs. "थायीलेखासं ./ जीआइआरसं /. Pan/Gir No.: Aasfv2565P अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 738/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Dcit, Cc-1, Vivan Commercial Llp Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, 1 Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Road, Near G T बनाम/ School, Rajkot - 360001 M G Road, Rajkot - 360001 Vs. "थायीलेखासं ./ जीआइआरसं /. Pan/Gir No.: Aasfv2565P अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No. 18/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Dcit, Cc-1, Vivan Commercial Llp Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, 1 Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Road, Near G T बनाम/ School, Rajkot - 360001 M G Road, Rajkot - 360001 Vs. "थायीलेखासं ./ जीआइआरसं /. Pan/Gir No.: Aasfv2565P अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

year in which the on-money has been received, ignoring that the same is not in accordance with Accounting principles as per ICDS-3 applicable to Real Estate Developers and also not appreciating that the income on account of undisclosed on-money receipt was required to be assessed

Vivan Commercial LLP, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 561/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos. 561 & 562/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 M/S. Vivan Commercial Llp The Dcit, Cc-1, R K World Tower, Sheetal Park, 150 Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, बनाम/ Ft Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 M G Road, Rajkot - 360001 Vs. "थायीलेखासं ./ जीआइआरसं /. Pan/Gir No.: Aasfv2565P अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 738/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Dcit, Cc-1, Vivan Commercial Llp Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, 1 Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Road, Near G T बनाम/ School, Rajkot - 360001 M G Road, Rajkot - 360001 Vs. "थायीलेखासं ./ जीआइआरसं /. Pan/Gir No.: Aasfv2565P अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No. 18/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Dcit, Cc-1, Vivan Commercial Llp Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, 1 Pearl Plaza, 150 Ft Ring Road, Near G T बनाम/ School, Rajkot - 360001 M G Road, Rajkot - 360001 Vs. "थायीलेखासं ./ जीआइआरसं /. Pan/Gir No.: Aasfv2565P अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

year in which the on-money has been received, ignoring that the same is not in accordance with Accounting principles as per ICDS-3 applicable to Real Estate Developers and also not appreciating that the income on account of undisclosed on-money receipt was required to be assessed

Mohd Nayeem, Jhansi vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(5), Jhansi

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee including additional ground are remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer

ITA 36/AGR/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21 Mohd Nayeem Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 74, Sadar Bazar Ward 2(3)(5), Jhanshi Jhansi Pan : Acfpn3382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Nitin Goyal, Advocate & Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) -2, Chennai Dated 05.12.2024 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2020- 21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice, Brief Facts Of The Case Relating To The Issues Are, Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee In Summary Assessment U/S 143(1) Of The Act Based On The Audit Report Disallowed The Amount Wherein The Auditor Has Declared In Form No. 3Cd That There Is Outstanding Payment Due Of Rs. 81,08,561/- To Gst, Based On The Above Audit Report,Cpc Has Disallowed The Above Said Outstanding U/S 43B Of The Act.

Section 143(1)Section 145Section 250Section 43B

exclusive method of accounting is thus not as prescribed. Also, as per Section 145 of the Act and the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) the GST/CENVAT/VAT must be included in the total turnover. This stand has been upheld by various judicial decisions including that of Hon'ble ITAT, Varanasi

Firstrand Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

loan processing fees and income earned on Bank guarantee and letter of credit (LC). While computing the total income, assessee considered the impact of ICDS with respect to - i) Loan processing fees and ii) Commission on Bank Guarantee and Letter of Credit (LC) on bill discounting. 15.1. Based ... above impact of ICDS, the following action was carried out: a. During AY 2017-18, out of the total income of Rs. 1,41,01,753/- recognised in the books, income amounting to Rs. 79,14,358/- was apportioned and offered to tax in AY 2018-19. b. During