ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income (assessment year wise, surplus application) of Rs. (-) 1,59,34,478/-, (-)1,84,63,954/-, (-)79,41,522, (-) 71,97,091, (-) 1,04,33,615/-, (-) 16,71,912/-, (+) 5,00,504/-, (-) 82,76,269/-; respectively. In other words, all these assessment years except AY 2011-12 have seen more application than receipts since there is nothing left after considering

M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

business activity for profit. 5. Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in law as well as in facts by upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing officer for taxing the total income of the trust whereas the income has been applied as per Section 11 of The IT. Act. 6. Because that the Ld. Commissioner

M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

business activity for profit. 5. Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in law as well as in facts by upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing officer for taxing the total income of the trust whereas the income has been applied as per Section 11 of The IT. Act. 6. Because that the Ld. Commissioner

REGIONAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.94/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009 Regional College Of Engineering & Vs. Ito Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar Management, Plot No.18, Sector-A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. : Aaaar 1386 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Allowing The Appeal Of The Appellant Against The Order Of The Learned Ao Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 15.10.2014 . 2. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Accepting That The Denial Of "Emption To A Charitable Trust Granted Registration U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act Is A Mistake Apparent From Record As Envisaged U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Holding That The Mistake Of Disallowance For Violation Of Provision Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record In The Case Of A Charitable Trust Registered U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act.

business or profession" under Section 28. The exception in Section 40 is carved out, only for the purpose of Section 28 and not for computing the exemption of income of a charitable trust

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Charitable Trust (1995) 129 CTR 205. In view of the order passed by the co- ordinate bench we allowed this issue in favour of the assessee and delete the addition confirmed by the CIF(A) in question. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. It is further submitted that even if the assessee fails

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Charitable Trust (1995) 129 CTR 205. In view of the order passed by the co- ordinate bench we allowed this issue in favour of the assessee and delete the addition confirmed by the CIF(A) in question. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. It is further submitted that even if the assessee fails

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Charitable Trust (1995) 129 CTR 205. In view of the order passed by the co- ordinate bench we allowed this issue in favour of the assessee and delete the addition confirmed by the CIF(A) in question. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. It is further submitted that even if the assessee fails