VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT (Del)

289 ITR 286High Court2007#1568 most cited

What is VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT (Del) authority for?

The last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorization is relevant for computing the limitation period for search assessments.

72

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT · 289 ITR 286 · Section 153B · limitation period · search assessment · last panchnama · last authorization · assessment procedure

Issues it is cited on

time barred assessmentcasus omissussection 153a(1)(b)section 2(22)section 153(1)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)section 40a(2)kelvinatormere change of opinionpanchnamasection 194a

Judgments citing VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT (Del)

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1451/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

…Hence, Assessing officer's action of completing assessment on 31.12.2008 is, in my view, in order. 7.3. In the following cases, it has been held that authorities could not be faulted for following a less drastic procedure. "a) VLS Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (Del) 289 ITR 286 b) Krishna Verma Vs. ACIT (1TAT, SB-Del) 113 ITD 655 Search during 29.6.98 to 5.8.98Last panchanama drawn on 5.8.98 ie within 60 days of initiation of search- Limitation of two year period would come to an end on 30.8.2000 – No ulterior motives could be attributed to the authorities in failing to seize the books of accounts and instead passing a…

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1450/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

…Hence, Assessing officer's action of completing assessment on 31.12.2008 is, in my view, in order. 7.3. In the following cases, it has been held that authorities could not be faulted for following a less drastic procedure. "a) VLS Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (Del) 289 ITR 286 b) Krishna Verma Vs. ACIT (1TAT, SB-Del) 113 ITD 655 Search during 29.6.98 to 5.8.98Last panchanama drawn on 5.8.98 ie within 60 days of initiation of search- Limitation of two year period would come to an end on 30.8.2000 – No ulterior motives could be attributed to the authorities in failing to seize the books of accounts and instead passing a…

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1449/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

…Hence, Assessing officer's action of completing assessment on 31.12.2008 is, in my view, in order. 7.3. In the following cases, it has been held that authorities could not be faulted for following a less drastic procedure. "a) VLS Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (Del) 289 ITR 286 b) Krishna Verma Vs. ACIT (1TAT, SB-Del) 113 ITD 655 Search during 29.6.98 to 5.8.98Last panchanama drawn on 5.8.98 ie within 60 days of initiation of search- Limitation of two year period would come to an end on 30.8.2000 – No ulterior motives could be attributed to the authorities in failing to seize the books of accounts and instead passing a…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3 vs. Sanjay Jain

ITA/637/2016HC Delhi17 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 153ASection 260A

…ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 – 610 /2016, 637 – 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 4th July, 2017 Pronounced on: 17th July 2017 + ITA 290/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 .....Appellant Versus PPC BUSINESS AND PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTIRES LTD. ..... Respondent +…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central -3 vs. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd

ITA/606/2016HC Delhi17 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 153ASection 260A

…ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 – 610 /2016, 637 – 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 4th July, 2017 Pronounced on: 17th July 2017 + ITA 290/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 .....Appellant Versus PPC BUSINESS AND PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTIRES LTD. ..... Respondent +…

Pr. Commissionr of Income Tax Central-3 vs. Ppc Business and Products Pvt. Ltd

ITA/290/2016HC Delhi17 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 153ASection 260A

…ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 – 610 /2016, 637 – 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 4th July, 2017 Pronounced on: 17th July 2017 + ITA 290/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 .....Appellant Versus PPC BUSINESS AND PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTIRES LTD. ..... Respondent +…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3 vs. J.H. Business India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/610/2016HC Delhi17 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 153ASection 260A

…ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 – 610 /2016, 637 – 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 4th July, 2017 Pronounced on: 17th July 2017 + ITA 290/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 .....Appellant Versus PPC BUSINESS AND PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTIRES LTD. ..... Respondent +…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3 vs. Surya Vinayak Industires Ltd

ITA/605/2016HC Delhi17 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 153ASection 260A

…ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 – 610 /2016, 637 – 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 4th July, 2017 Pronounced on: 17th July 2017 + ITA 290/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 .....Appellant Versus PPC BUSINESS AND PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTIRES LTD. ..... Respondent +…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3 vs. Sanjay Jain

ITA/638/2016HC Delhi17 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 153ASection 260A

…ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 – 610 /2016, 637 – 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 4th July, 2017 Pronounced on: 17th July 2017 + ITA 290/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 .....Appellant Versus PPC BUSINESS AND PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTIRES LTD. ..... Respondent +…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3 vs. J.H. Business India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/640/2016HC Delhi17 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 153ASection 260A

…ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 – 610 /2016, 637 – 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 4th July, 2017 Pronounced on: 17th July 2017 + ITA 290/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 .....Appellant Versus PPC BUSINESS AND PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTIRES LTD. ..... Respondent +…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3 vs. J.H. Business India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/850/2016HC Delhi17 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 143Section 153ASection 260A

…ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 – 610 /2016, 637 – 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 4th July, 2017 Pronounced on: 17th July 2017 + ITA 290/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 .....Appellant Versus PPC BUSINESS AND PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 605/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTIRES LTD. ..... Respondent +…

M/S. Svil Mines Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 833/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…e extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the IT AT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance v Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del). 11 8. The ITAT correctly concluded that where there are various authorisations issued and various panchnama prepared, it would be the last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorisation which would be relevant for computing the limitation period . 9. In the present case, as noted by the IT AT, there is only one authorisation whic…

M/S. Svil Mines Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 832/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…e extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the IT AT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance v Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del). 11 8. The ITAT correctly concluded that where there are various authorisations issued and various panchnama prepared, it would be the last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorisation which would be relevant for computing the limitation period . 9. In the present case, as noted by the IT AT, there is only one authorisation whic…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. United Helicharters P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6917/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 40Section 44ASection 9(1)(vii)

…possibly perform. Requiring the assessee to file a proper and complete return by including the income under the head 'Capital gain' would be impossible for the assessee, in cases of the nature referred above. " In the case of VL.S. Finance Ltd. v ClT [20Q7J 289 ITR 286 Hon 'ble Delhi High Court was concerned with the question as to whether assessment proceedings were within the period of limitation in view of the fact that special audit, which was to precede the assessment order was stayed, for some time by the order of the court. In this connection, the court noted as follows. "In Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada De…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company, New Delhi

In the result additional ground filed by the assessee in his cross objection as well as ground No

ITA 3155/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 80I

…on the extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the ITAT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del). 8. The ITAT correctly concluded that where there are various authorisations issued and various panchnama prepared, it would be the last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorisation which would be relevant for computing the limitation period. 9. In the present case, as noted by the ITAT, there is only one authorisation which was…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd.Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company, New Delhi

In the result additional ground filed by the assessee in his cross objection as well as ground No

ITA 3154/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 80I

…on the extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the ITAT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del). 8. The ITAT correctly concluded that where there are various authorisations issued and various panchnama prepared, it would be the last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorisation which would be relevant for computing the limitation period. 9. In the present case, as noted by the ITAT, there is only one authorisation which was…

CIT vs. J. H. Finvest Pvt. Ltd

ITA/33/2015HC Delhi30 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…e extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the IT AT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del). 8. The IT AT correctly concluded that where there are various authorisations issued and various panchnama prepared, it would be the last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorisation which would be relevant for computing the limitation period. 9. In the present case, as noted by the ITA T, there is only one authorisation wh…

CIT vs. Svil Mines Ltd

ITA/36/2015HC Delhi30 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…e extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the IT AT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del). 8. The IT AT correctly concluded that where there are various authorisations issued and various panchnama prepared, it would be the last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorisation which would be relevant for computing the limitation period. 9. In the present case, as noted by the ITA T, there is only one authorisation wh…

CIT vs. J. H. Finvest Pvt. Ltd

ITA/29/2015HC Delhi30 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…e extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the IT AT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del). 8. The IT AT correctly concluded that where there are various authorisations issued and various panchnama prepared, it would be the last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorisation which would be relevant for computing the limitation period. 9. In the present case, as noted by the ITA T, there is only one authorisation wh…

CIT vs. Svil Mines Ltd

ITA/37/2015HC Delhi30 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…e extended date of search, after lifting the restraint, would be of no consequence, for the purposes of computation of limitation under Section 153B of the Act. In particular, the IT AT referred to the decision of this Court in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del). 8. The IT AT correctly concluded that where there are various authorisations issued and various panchnama prepared, it would be the last panchnama prepared in respect of the last authorisation which would be relevant for computing the limitation period. 9. In the present case, as noted by the ITA T, there is only one authorisation wh…