M/S RACHIT PRINTS P. LTD.,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) deleted the addition on sundry creditors and directed the application of a 1.5% profit rate for the fall in NP rate, which the assessee accepted. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
What were the facts?
The CIT set aside the original assessment order under Section 263, directing the AO to conduct further inquiries into the fall in NP rate, sundry creditors, and sale promotion expenses. The AO passed a fresh order making additions for NP rate and sundry creditors.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 to direct further inquiries, and the subsequent fate of additions made by the AO after the set-aside order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI N.S. SAINI
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT, Meerut, Dated 18.03.2013, under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the A.Y. 2008-2009.
In this case, the Ld. CIT issued notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act pointing-out that the A.O. has not made enquiries/investigation with regard to fall in N.P. rate, sundry creditors and sale promotion expenses. The assessment order was, therefore, set aside and restore to the file of A.O. for passing of the order afresh.
2 ITA.No.3446/Del./2013 M/s. Rachit Prints P. Ltd., Meerut.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that A.O. passed the fresh assessment order under section 263/143(3) dated 13.03.2014 whereby he has made only two additions i.e., N.P. rate and sundry creditors. He has further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.01.2016 deleted the addition on account of sundry creditors and on account of fall in N.P. rate directed to apply profit rate of 1.5%, which the assessee has agreed before A.O. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that assessee may be permitted to withdraw the appeal. An endorsement to that effect is made on Form 36. The Ld. D.R. has no objection if appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, appeal of assessee dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026