“first appeal”

Kamlesh Motwani, Bhopal vs. DCIT-2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 amet /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 07.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. He further submits that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore

Deeya Agrotech Private Limited, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideeya Agrotech Private Ito Burhanpur बनाम/ Limited, Vs. 203, Bahadarpur Road, Burhanpur 450331, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (Pan:Aadcd9603J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pankaj Mogra, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order” 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee ... grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:- “5.0 Decision:-Keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal position, the appeal filed by the appellant is therefore decided on merits on the basis of documents available on record

Devi Anusuiya Vidya Sansthan, Indore vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 24.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of rectification-order dated ... Audit Report [Form No. 10B] was also not filed within the statutory period. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but the CIT(A) rejected assessee’s appeal and did not grant any relief. Now, the assessee has come before us by way of next appeal

Mohammad Rafiq Warsi, Pipariya vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Itarsi

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition of Rs. 13,70,000/-] 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid "Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the "Impugned Order" has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee ... grounds & reasons stated therein. The core grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal were as under:- “6. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had not filed its return of income for the year under Page 3 of 12 Mohammad Rafiq Warsi ITA No. 383/Ind/2025

Rajesh Gourishankar, Dewas vs. Officer, Dewas

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Date of Hearing | | 09.02.2026 | | | Date of Pronouncement | | 19.02.2026 | | # आदेश **/ O R D E R** ## **Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:** Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 26.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 03.12.2018 passed ... take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. - 4. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has decided first-appeal *ex-parte* qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. However

Uttam Developers, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiuttam Developers Ito 5(1) बनाम/ 256, Guru Nanak Timber Indore Vs. Market Dhar Road, Indore (Pan: Aadfu5485C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee ... grounds & reasons stated therein. The core ground & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under: “3. Observations, Finding and Decision: 3.1 I have perused the assessment order and other relevant records. The assessment order was passed u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against which

M/S Ras Devcon Private Limited, Sanvid Nagar, Kanadia Road, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite White Church Road

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

which is herein after referred to as the "Impugned Assessment Order”. 2.9 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Sheetal Nath Colonizers, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(2), Bhopal, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee ... grounds & reasons stated therein. The core ground & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under: “5.7 From the above decisions it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay, where the appeal was filed beyond the limitation of period, the courts are empowered to condone

Shivam Sharma, Haridwar vs. ITO Ward-1(3)(3), Haridwar

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrisanjay Awasthishivam Sharma Vs Ito Hosue No. 28, Braham Vihar Ward-1(3)(3) Colony, Kankhal, Haridwar, Industrial Area, Haridwar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Delhi Pan: Dmkps2450B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Vikas Sandilya, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the First Appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Jaspal Singh, Dehradun vs. ITO Ward1(1)(2) Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 08/12/2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the First Appeal by confirming the Assessment Order and the order of penalty respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed ... penalty, Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 217 days and 38 days respectively in filing the First Appeals. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order impugned dated 18/12/2025, dismissed the First Appeals without condoning the above delays in filing the Appeals. The Assessee aggrieved

Jaspal Singh, Dehradun vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(2), Dehradun

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 08/12/2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the First Appeal by confirming the Assessment Order and the order of penalty respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed ... penalty, Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 217 days and 38 days respectively in filing the First Appeals. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order impugned dated 18/12/2025, dismissed the First Appeals without condoning the above delays in filing the Appeals. The Assessee aggrieved

Ajay Pundir, Village Kirsali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Appellant are partly allowed for

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 27/09/2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the First Appeal by confirming the Assessment Order and the order of penalty respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment orders came to be passed

Ajay Pundir, Village Kirsali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Appellant are partly allowed for

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 27/09/2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the First Appeal by confirming the Assessment Order and the order of penalty respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment orders came to be passed

M/S. Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

same as taxable on accrual basis and no deduction u/s 80IA was allowed on such addition. 3. Against the said order, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which is pending as on date. 4. In the meantime, vide notice dated 07.03.2022, available at page