← 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

M/S. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7688/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rallis India Limited Dy. Cit, Circle 8(1)(1) Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Esplanade House, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aabcr 2657 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Percy J Pardiwalla & Shri Jeet Kamdar Respondent By : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.09.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2022-23. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, The Core Issue Arising In Appeal Relates To Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.1284.66 Crores On Account Of Adjustments Under Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (‘Icds’ For Short).

For Appellant: Shri Percy J Pardiwalla and Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

core issue arising in appeal relates to addition of an amount of Rs.1284.66 crores on account of adjustments under Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (‘ICDS’ for short). 3. Relevant facts necessary for deciding this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in the business ... total income, the assessee suo motu added back an amount of Rs.84,65,69,060/-, including an amount of Rs.1,15,08,630/- towards ICDS adjustment. While processing the return of income filed by the assessee u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) issued a show

Murari Lal Harish Chand Jaiswal Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Murari Lal Harish Chand Vs Dcit Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., 6043, Central Circle-31, Naya Bans, Chandni Delhi Chowk, Delhi-110006. Pan-Aaacm6428P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.30/10268/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2021 Passed U/S 153A Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Is A Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Tobacco Products & Derived Income From Profits & Gains From Business & From Capital Gain/Loss & Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2018, Declaring Income Of Inr 1,09,82,630/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Following Two Issues:- (I) Icds Compliance & Adjustment (Ii) Income U/S 56(2)(X)

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

income on 28.09.2018, declaring income of INR 1,09,82,630/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for following two issues:- (i) ICDS compliance and adjustment (ii) income u/s 56(2)(x) 3. Thereafter, statutory notices u/s 143(2)9 and 142(1) of the Act were issued

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int) Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6570/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

conciliation statement. 28. Further, Ld. DRP members also relied on CBDT Circular No. 10/2017 dated March 23, 2017 which discusses on the applicability of ICDS on determination of turnover by non corporate taxpayers covered under presumptive taxation like Sections 44AD, 44AE, 44ADA, 448, 44BB, 448BA, etc. and stated that ... service receipts and sales in the instant case are to be valued inclusive of taxes, as per ICDS guidelines Relevant extract of Circular is hereunder- "Question 3: Does ICDS apply to non-corporate taxpayers who are not required to maintain books of account and/or those who are covered by presumptive

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

case that, there was a change in position of law in the relevant AY 2017-18 by introduction of Section 43CB along with ICDS-III and therefore the assessee henceforth was required to follow percentage completion method in respect of the real estate projects undertaken ... rightly pointed out that, the Revenue had totally ignored the transitional provisions mentioned in ICDS III, which for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced as under: "Transitional Provisions 22. 1 Contract revenue and contract costs associated with the construction contract, which commenced on or after 1st day of April

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

case that, there was a change in position of law in the relevant AY 2017-18 by introduction of Section 43CB along with ICDS-III and therefore the assessee henceforth was required to follow percentage completion method in respect of the real estate projects undertaken ... rightly pointed out that, the Revenue had totally ignored the transitional provisions mentioned in ICDS III, which for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced as under: "Transitional Provisions 22. 1 Contract revenue and contract costs associated with the construction contract, which commenced on or after 1st day of April