ICDS V Clause 13 Reporting, Depreciation Reconciliation & Recent ITAT Decisions

By Rahul Shah Income Tax Articles August 3, 2026

ICDS V (Tangible Fixed Assets) reporting in Clause 13, Depreciation Adjustments and the Risk of Double Disallowance: Lessons from Recent Tribunal Decisions

Summary: The material discusses ICDS V in the context of tangible fixed assets, depreciation reconciliation, Clause 13 reporting in Form 3CD, ICDS disclosures, and recent Tribunal decisions concerning double disallowance, section 143(1) processing, section 263 revision, and computational errors. It explains that ICDS applies to tax computation rather than financial statements and emphasises reconciling book depreciation, tax depreciation, Schedule BP, Schedule ICDS, and Form 3CD to ensure the same adjustment is not reflected more than once. The discussion highlights Tribunal decisions involving ICDS-related fixed-asset adjustments, reconciliation of Form 3CD with Schedule ICDS and Schedule BP, Ind AS 116 right-of-use assets, GST refunds under the inclusive method, stay proceedings concerning alleged double disallowance, and computational mistakes carried from processing to assessment. The material also distinguishes cases directly involving ICDS V from those concerning broader ICDS reporting, depreciation, revisionary jurisdiction, and procedural issues, while outlining a reconciliation-based approach for Clause 13 reporting and tax computation.

Introduction

Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (“ICDS”) have an important, but sometimes misunderstood, place in the computation of taxable income. The difficulty becomes particularly visible where depreciation in the financial statements differs from depreciation allowable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), and the difference is also reported in the tax audit report.

This creates a practical question: when an ICDS-related difference has already been given effect to in the computation of income, can the same figure be added again merely because it appears separately in Form 3CD?

The answer emerging from the recent Tribunal decisions considered here is clear: the same amount cannot be taxed twice merely because it has been disclosed in more than one reporting schedule. The return, tax computation, Form 3CD, Schedule ICDS and Schedule BP have to be read together.

At the same time, care is required in describing these decisions. Although this article discusses ICDS V—Tangible Fixed Assets—most of the cases considered below are not detailed interpretations of the provisions of ICDS V. They principally concern depreciation reconciliation, Form 3CD disclosures, section 143(1) processing, section 263 revision and computational errors. Schindler India is the clearest example of a case directly involving an ICDS adjustment relating to tangible fixed assets. New Balance has a more specific ICDS connection concerning the inclusive method and taxes. The remaining cases are useful mainly because they show how ICDS-related figures can become involved in tax processing and assessment disputes.

1. ICDS V and the distinction between books and tax computation

ICDS V deals with tangible fixed assets for the purposes of computing taxable income. It should not, however, be treated as a replacement for the accounting standards governing preparation of financial statements.

The starting point is therefore to keep two figures separate:

1. the figure appearing in the books of account, prepared under the applicable accounting framework; and

2. the figure relevant for tax computation, determined under the Act read with the applicable ICDS.

For depreciation, this distinction is particularly important. A taxpayer may debit depreciation in its profit and loss account under the Companies Act/Ind AS framework and then add that book depreciation back in the tax computation while claiming depreciation under section 32 of the Act.

The resulting difference may appear in an ICDS-related disclosure. But that disclosure does not mean that the difference should automatically be added once again to taxable income.

That is the central practical lesson of Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, discussed below.

2. Who is required to follow ICDS?

The Tribunal in New Balance IT Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO referred to the CBDT notification making ICDS applicable from Assessment Year 2017-18 to assessees, other than an individual or HUF not covered by tax audit under section 44AB, following the mercantile system of accounting for computing income chargeable under the heads “Profits and gains of business or profession” or “Income from other sources”. The Tribunal also referred to section 145(2), under which compliance with applicable ICDS is mandated.

The significance of this framework is that ICDS operates in the tax computation. It does not require the financial statements themselves to be rewritten merely to conform to ICDS.

3. Clause 13 is a disclosure; it is not a second computation

This distinction is essential.

A tax auditor may report an ICDS adjustment in Form 3CD. The assessee may already have given effect to the very same adjustment in the computation of taxable income. If the processing centre then treats the Form 3CD disclosure as a fresh addition without examining the computation, the same amount can effectively be disallowed twice.

The Tribunal decisions below demonstrate three recurring situations:

the book-versus-tax depreciation difference has already been dealt with in the computation;
an amount disclosed in Form 3CD has already been disallowed in Schedule BP; or
an apparent mismatch between Form 3CD and Schedule ICDS disappears once the upward and downward adjustments are reconciled.

The correct approach is therefore not to ask merely, “What amount is reported under Clause 13?” The real question is, “Where has that amount already been given effect to in the computation?”

4. The important cases

Citation	Issue	Court’s Findings	Connection with ICDS V	Practical Relevance for Clause 13 Reporting
Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 4819/Mum/2024, AY 2020-21, ITAT Mumbai, order dated 06.06.2025	ICDS adjustment of Rs. 12,40,29,831 relating to tangible fixed assets was reported in Form 3CD although the assessee had already added back book depreciation and claimed depreciation under the Act.	The Tribunal examined the return, tax computation and tax audit report and found that the fixed-asset ICDS adjustment had already been given effect to. The tax auditor separately reported the same adjustment, which CPC again picked up. The resulting double disallowance of Rs. 12,40,29,831 was deleted.	Strongest direct relevance in the set. The order expressly refers to the ICDS adjustment relating to tangible fixed assets. However, it does not undertake a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of ICDS V or decide an “actual cost” or subsequent-expenditure question.	Disclosure must be reconciled with computation. A Clause 13 figure cannot be treated as an additional taxable amount if the underlying book/tax depreciation adjustment has already been made.
ACIT v. Corro Health Infotech Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1236/C hny/2026, AY 2022-23, ITAT Chennai, order dated 01.07.2026	CPC made an adjustment of Rs. 24,00,70,753 after comparing Form 3CD and Schedule ICDS. Form 3CD showed ICDS-related increase of Rs. 69,79,48,694, whereas Rs. 45,78,77,941 was reflected in the return.	The Tribunal found that the Form 3CD figure comprised ICDS adjustments of Rs. 45,78,77,941 already reflected in Schedule ICDS and ROU amortisation of Rs. 11,53,31,686 already disallowed in Schedule BP. CPC also considered upward adjustments of Rs. 69,79,48,694 while ignoring downward adjustments of Rs. 12,47,39,067. The Tribunal held that the reconciliation required detailed examination and that the adjustment resulted in double disallowance. The Rs. 24,00,70,753 adjustment was deleted.	Relevant to ICDS reporting and fixed-asset/ROU treatment, but not a pure ICDS V interpretation case. The Tribunal did not decide that an ROU asset is necessarily a tangible fixed asset eligible for depreciation under ICDS V.	The figures in Form 3CD, Schedule ICDS and Schedule BP must be reconciled together. Both upward and downward ICDS adjustments must be considered. An amount already disallowed in Schedule BP cannot be disallowed again merely because it also appears in the ICDS disclosure.
Pennar Industries Ltd. v. DCIT , ITA No. 832/Hyd/2025, AY 2020-21, ITAT Hyderabad, order dated 27.03.2026	The Pr. CIT invoked section 263 in relation to, among other matters, Ind AS 116 amortisation of Rs. 4,20,41,563, directing examination of its allowability vis-à-vis ICDS.	The Tribunal found that although the AO had considered ICDS compliance generally, the specific allowability of the Ind AS 116 amortisation claim had not been specifically verified. On that limited issue, the Tribunal did not accept that the Pr. CIT had simply substituted his view and allowed the revision to proceed. The case therefore illustrates the importance of the extent of AO enquiry under section 263.	Limited and indirect ICDS V relevance. The real controversy was Ind AS 116, ROU accounting and the scope of section 263—not a definitive ruling that ROU assets are tangible fixed assets under ICDS V.	Where an Ind AS 116 adjustment is involved, the auditor should separately identify the accounting entry and the tax treatment. The mere existence of an ROU amortisation charge in the accounts does not determine its tax allowability.
Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT ITA No. 2732/Del/2024, AY 2018-19, ITAT Delhi, order dated 15.04.2025	Whether the AO had made adequate enquiry into depreciation of Rs. 23.68 crore, against book depreciation of approximately Rs. 35.90 crore, including depreciation on finance-leased assets.	The AO had specifically queried the depreciation claim under section 142(1). The assessee supplied details and relied on the Supreme Court decision in ICDS Ltd. v. CIT, 350 ITR 527 (SC) concerning ownership and depreciation of finance-leased assets. The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view after enquiry and quashed the section 263 revision on this issue.	Very limited ICDS V relevance. Importantly, “ICDS” in ICDS Ltd. v. CIT is the name of the assessee, not the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards. That Supreme Court decision predates the ICDS framework and concerns depreciation and ownership of finance-leased assets under section 32.	Do not cite ICDS Ltd. v. CIT as an ICDS V authority. The case is useful instead for the proposition that a section 263 revision cannot be founded merely on disagreement where the AO made enquiry and adopted a legally possible view.

The cases above show why it is important not to describe every “ICDS adjustment” as an “ICDS V adjustment”. In Schindler India, the connection is direct: the Tribunal itself described the adjustment as one concerning tangible fixed assets. In CorroHealth, however, the central question was the reconciliation of disclosures and the prevention of a second disallowance. In Pennar, the focus was the AO’s enquiry into Ind AS 116 amortisation and the exercise of section 263 jurisdiction.

5. What does “valuation under ICDS” mean when the books show another figure?

It is better not to think of ICDS as prescribing a separate accounting valuation system in the same way as Ind AS. ICDS governs the manner in which amounts arising from the accounts are dealt with for tax computation.

For example, assume:

depreciation charged in the books: Rs. 20 lakh;
depreciation allowable under section 32: Rs. 15 lakh.

The normal tax computation would begin by adding back the Rs. 20 lakh book depreciation and then claiming Rs. 15 lakh as tax depreciation. The Rs. 5 lakh difference is therefore already reflected in the computation.

If that Rs. 5 lakh is separately reported as an ICDS-related adjustment in Form 3CD, it should not automatically become another Rs. 5 lakh addition.

This is precisely the problem identified in Schindler India. The assessee had already dealt with the book depreciation/tax depreciation difference, but the tax auditor separately reported the same adjustment and CPC picked it up again. The Tribunal deleted the resulting Rs. 12,40,29,831 double disallowance.

The distinction can be summarised as follows:

Books of account → book depreciation

Tax computation → add back book depreciation → claim depreciation under section 32

ICDS/Form 3CD → disclose the relevant adjustment

Final taxable income → should reflect the adjustment only once

The same principle applies even more strongly where several schedules are involved. In CorroHealth, the Tribunal found that the apparent difference between Form 3CD and the return could not be understood without looking at Schedule ICDS and Schedule BP together.

6. The special problem of ROU assets

Ind AS 116 creates another layer of difficulty. Under the accounting standard, a lessee may recognise a right-of-use asset and a corresponding lease liability and charge amortisation and finance cost to the profit and loss account.

That accounting treatment does not, by itself, determine the tax deduction.

The tax question has to be answered under the Act. Depending upon the facts and the nature of the transaction, issues may arise under section 32, including the question of ownership for depreciation purposes, or under section 37 in relation to revenue expenditure such as lease rentals.

The material supplied for Pennar Industries shows this distinction particularly well. The assessee had adopted Ind AS 116 from 1 April 2019, recognised ROU assets and lease liabilities, and charged finance cost and amortisation. In its tax computation, it stated that finance cost was added back and lease rentals were claimed as a deduction under the Act.

The important point is therefore not to treat the Ind AS 116 amortisation figure as automatically equivalent to an ICDS V depreciation figure.

The broader tax treatment of ROU assets remains an area requiring careful analysis on the facts. The cases considered here should not be read as conclusively deciding that every ROU asset is a depreciable tangible fixed asset under ICDS V.

7. The practical rule emerging from above discussion

The safest approach is simple:

Do not start with Clause 13 and work backwards to taxable income. Start with the tax computation and use Clause 13 as a disclosure to be reconciled with it.

Before accepting an ICDS-related addition, the following should be checked:

Was the underlying book expense already added back?
Was the corresponding tax deduction already claimed?
Has the same adjustment been reported in Form 3CD?
Has it already been reflected in Schedule ICDS?
Has any part of it already been disallowed in Schedule BP?
Are there corresponding downward ICDS adjustments which must also be considered?

This approach is supported most directly by Schindler India and CorroHealth. In the latter, the Tribunal specifically held that the reconciliation between Form 3CD, Schedule ICDS and Schedule BP required an examination beyond the scope of a prima facie adjustment under section 143(1).

8. Other decisions: useful lessons, but not ICDS V precedents

The remaining decisions are useful in understanding how tax reporting can go wrong, but they should not be presented as substantive authorities on ICDS V.

New Balance IT Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA Nos. 245 & 246/PUN/2024; AYs 2020-21 and 2022-23; ITAT Pune, order dated 05.06.2024

This is an ICDS case, but not a conventional dispute about the actual cost of a tangible fixed asset.

The assessee received GST refunds of Rs. 2,01,95,946 for AY 2020-21 and Rs. 1,61,65,450 for AY 2022-23. The amounts had not been routed through the profit and loss account. The returns were processed under section 143(1), and the GST refunds were added on the basis of the tax audit report and the applicable provisions of section 145 and ICDS.

The assessee had followed an exclusive method of accounting, recording transactions net of indirect taxes. It argued that the method was tax-neutral because the GST paid on expenses was not separately debited to the profit and loss account and the subsequent refund was consequently not credited to it.

The Tribunal considered the inclusive method required under section 145(2) read with the relevant ICDS. The order records that ICDS II, IV and V require the inclusive method, under which applicable taxes and levies are included in transactions.

The case is therefore relevant to ICDS V to the limited extent that taxes and levies can form part of the cost of capital transactions. It should not, however, be cited as a ruling on the actual cost of a particular tangible fixed asset. Its main lesson is about the interaction between the prescribed inclusive method, indirect taxes, the tax audit report and section 143(1) processing.

EXL Service.com (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Stay Applications Nos. 56 & 55/Del/2025; ITAs Nos. 6028 & 6029/Del/2024; AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22; ITAT Delhi, order dated 31.01.2025

EXL Service.com is particularly useful as a warning against treating a tax-audit disclosure as an automatic second disallowance.

For AY 2021-22, an amount of Rs. 53,03,12,565 was disallowed on account of the difference between depreciation under the Companies Act and depreciation under the Income-tax Act. The assessee contended that the difference had already been added back in the income-tax return and that the further disallowance therefore amounted to double disallowance.

The order before the Tribunal was a stay application, not the final adjudication of the depreciation issue. The Tribunal recorded that the assessee had made out a strong prima facie case and that the issues were either covered in favour of the assessee or had not attained finality because rectification applications were pending. The demands were accordingly stayed for 180 days or until disposal of the appeals, whichever was earlier.

This distinction matters. EXL Service.com should not be cited as a final judicial determination on ICDS V or double disallowance. It is better used to show that the double-disallowance argument can be a serious issue requiring consideration before recovery is enforced.

Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025; ITAT Rajkot, order dated 08.12.2025

Gopal Snacks is even further removed from ICDS V.

One issue concerned a section 80JJAA deduction of Rs. 3,01,93,275 which CPC had disallowed under section 143(1). The deduction was subsequently allowed by the Assessing Officer in scrutiny proceedings under section 143(3). However, while preparing the assessment order, the AO inadvertently carried forward the earlier processed figure of Rs. 60,75,10,430 instead of the correct income of Rs. 58,44,15,970.

The Tribunal examined the CPC order and the scrutiny assessment and directed correction of the erroneous figure. It held that the correct income was Rs. 58,44,15,970 and directed the AO to substitute that figure.

The case has no substantive ICDS V principle. Its value for the present article lies elsewhere: tax processing and assessment records must be read together. A figure carried forward from an earlier processing stage cannot be treated as correct merely because it appears in the subsequent assessment order.

The case therefore belongs in this article only as an illustration of computational and procedural error, not as an ICDS V precedent.

9. Consolidated case-law table

Case & Citation	Issue	Court’s Findings	Connection with ICDS V	Practical Relevance for Clause 13 Reporting
Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACITITA No. 4819/Mum/2024; AY 2020-21; ITAT Mumbai, 06.06.2025	Double disallowance of Rs. 12,40,29,831 relating to fixed-asset ICDS adjustment	Amount already given effect to in computation; second disallowance deleted	Direct/ strongest relevance, but no detailed paragraph-wise ICDS V interpretation	Reconcile Form 3CD with computation; disclosure cannot create a second addition
ACIT v. Corro Health Infotech Pvt. Ltd.ITA No. 1236/Chny/2026; AY 2022-23; ITAT Chennai, 01.07.2026	Difference between Form 3CD and Schedule ICDS; ROU amortisation and upward/ downward ICDS adjustments	Rs. 24,00,70,753 adjustment deleted; reconciliation required; double disallowance found	Relevant but not a pure ICDS V case; ROU issue not finally classified under ICDS V	Consider Schedule ICDS, Schedule BP and both upward/ downward adjustments together
Pennar Industries Ltd. v. DCITITA No. 832/Hyd/2025; ITAT Hyderabad, 27.03.2026	Section 263 and Ind AS 116 ROU amortisation	Enquiry into specific amortisation issue required consideration; revision issue turned on adequacy of AO enquiry	Indirect relevance; primarily section 263 and ROU accounting	Do not equate Ind AS 116 amortisation automatically with tax depreciation
Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCITITA No. 2732/Del/2024; AY 2018-19; ITAT Delhi, 15.04.2025	Section 263 revision concerning depreciation and finance-leased assets	AO had made specific enquiry; revision could not be based on fishing enquiry	Limited relevance	“ICDS Ltd.” is the assessee’s name, not the ICDS framework
New Balance IT Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITOITA Nos. 245 & 246/PUN/2024; AYs 2020-21 & 2022-23; ITAT Pune, 05.06.2024	GST refunds, exclusive/ inclusive method and section 143(1)	Tribunal considered section 145 and applicable ICDS requirements	ICDS connection, including limited ICDS V relevance	Indirect taxes and accounting method can affect ICDS reporting; distinguish tax neutrality from compliance
EXL Service.com (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCITSA Nos. 56 & 55/Del/2025; ITAs Nos. 6028 & 6029/Del/2024; ITAT Delhi, 31.01.2025	Rs. 53,03,12,565 alleged double disallowance of depreciation difference	Stay granted after prima facie case was made out	Peripheral; stay order, not final ICDS V ruling	Supports caution before treating a reported depreciation difference as a fresh addition
Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v. ACITITA Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025; ITAT Rajkot, 08.12.2025	CPC figure carried into scrutiny assessment despite later allowance of section 80JJAA deduction	Correct income directed to be substituted; computational error recognised	No substantive ICDS V relevance	Useful illustration of why CPC processing and subsequent assessment records must be reconciled

10. A simple working example

Consider a taxpayer whose accounts contain book depreciation of Rs. 20 lakh.

Tax depreciation under section 32 is Rs. 15 lakh.

The basic tax computation would be:

Particulars	Amount
Book depreciation debited to P&L	Rs. 20 lakh
Add: Book depreciation	Rs. 20 lakh
Less: Depreciation allowable under section 32	Rs. 15 lakh
Net increase arising from depreciation difference	Rs. 5 lakh

The Rs. 5 lakh difference is therefore already embedded in the tax computation.

Suppose there is also a Rs. 2 lakh downward ICDS adjustment in respect of another item. The net ICDS effect, viewed at the reconciliation level, would be Rs. 3 lakh.

The important point is not the arithmetic alone. The figures must be traced through the return:

Financial statements → tax computation → Schedule BP → Schedule ICDS → Form 3CD Clause 13 → final taxable income.

The exact presentation can depend on the nature of the adjustment, so the working paper should not assume that every Clause 13 amount will appear in exactly the same place. What matters is that the auditor can demonstrate where each amount has been given effect to.

That is the lesson that becomes particularly important in CorroHealth. The Tribunal noted that the CPC had considered ICDS adjustments increasing profit of Rs. 69,79,48,694 but ignored adjustments decreasing profit of Rs. 12,47,39,067. It also found that ROU amortisation of Rs. 11,53,31,686 had already been added back under Schedule BP.

The result was that a disclosure difference was mistaken for omitted income.

11. A practical three-step rule for Clause 13

A practitioner preparing or reviewing Clause 13 can reduce the entire exercise to three questions.

First — What is the accounting figure?
Identify the amount recognised in the financial statements and understand why it differs from the tax treatment.

Second — What has already been done in the computation?
Trace the book depreciation add-back, tax depreciation claim and every other relevant adjustment through Schedule BP and the computation of income.

Third — Does Clause 13 merely disclose that adjustment, or has it created a genuinely unaccounted difference?
This requires reconciliation with Schedule ICDS and, where relevant, other schedules of the return.

The third question is the one most likely to prevent a double addition.

12. What the cases actually establish

Taken together, the decisions do not establish a comprehensive judicial code on ICDS V. They establish something more practical.

Schindler India shows that an ICDS-related fixed-asset adjustment already reflected in the tax computation cannot simply be picked up again from Form 3CD.

CorroHealth goes a step further by showing why the entire reporting chain has to be considered. A mismatch between Form 3CD and Schedule ICDS may be only apparent, particularly where an amount is already dealt with under Schedule BP or where downward adjustments have been ignored.

Pennar reminds taxpayers that Ind AS 116 accounting does not answer the tax question by itself. The tax treatment of ROU assets must be tested under the Act and the applicable tax-computation rules.

Clix Capital demonstrates why a case involving “ICDS” in its name should not automatically be treated as an ICDS case. The Supreme Court’s decision in ICDS Ltd. v. CIT, 350 ITR 527 (SC) concerns depreciation and ownership of finance-leased assets under section 32; “ICDS” is simply the assessee’s name.

New Balance shows that compliance with the prescribed method under section 145(2) and the applicable ICDS cannot be dismissed merely by saying that an alternative accounting method is tax-neutral.

EXL Service.com provides a further cautionary example, but because it is a stay order, it should not be cited as a final ruling on the merits of the double-disallowance issue.

Finally, Gopal Snacks is useful only by analogy: an assessment figure copied from an earlier processing stage can remain wrong even after the underlying issue has subsequently been resolved. The Tribunal corrected the figure rather than allowing the earlier processing figure to control the final assessment.

Conclusion

The safest way to approach Clause 13 is to remember that a disclosure is not the same thing as an addition to income.

For depreciation and fixed assets, the financial statements may contain one figure while the tax computation contains another. That is not, by itself, an error. The relevant question is whether the difference has been correctly dealt with under the Act and applicable ICDS.

The real danger arises when the same adjustment is allowed to travel through the system twice: first through the computation and then again through an automatic comparison of Form 3CD with Schedule ICDS.

The recent Tribunal decisions therefore point towards a straightforward working discipline:

Books → identify accounting treatment → add back/allow as required under the Act → compute tax depreciation or other tax adjustment → reconcile Schedule BP → reconcile Schedule ICDS → verify Clause 13.

If the same amount appears at more than one stage, the auditor should not assume that there are multiple tax adjustments. The auditor should ask where the amount has already been given effect to.

That is the practical significance of Schindler India and CorroHealth. Both show, in different ways, why a mechanical comparison of Form 3CD with the return can produce an artificial demand. In CorroHealth, the Tribunal specifically found that the issue required reconciliation between Form 3CD, Schedule ICDS and Schedule BP and therefore could not properly be resolved through a prima facie adjustment under section 143(1).

At the same time, practitioners should resist the temptation to describe every one of these decisions as an ICDS V ruling. ICDS V has a specific field of operation. Some of the cases discussed here concern tangible fixed assets and depreciation; others concern ICDS reporting generally, Ind AS 116, section 263, section 143(1), or simple computational mistakes.

That distinction is not merely academic. It makes the article—and the tax position based on it—more reliable.

For a tax auditor, the best working paper is therefore not a list of Clause 13 figures in isolation. It is a reconciliation showing, for every material adjustment:

what appears in the books;
what is added back or claimed in the computation;
what is reported under the relevant ICDS;
what appears in Schedule ICDS;
what has been reflected in Schedule BP; and
whether any amount has inadvertently been counted twice.

In short, the object of Clause 13 is accurate disclosure, not duplicate taxation. A careful reconciliation is the simplest protection against turning a reporting difference into an unjustified addition.