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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

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

Charitable Trust, Berahampur thus reverse the CCIT’s findings as well as Revenue’s argument on the latter account as well. 7.8 Lastly comes the Revenue’s concluding argument that the CCIT has rightly held that assessee’s trustees had unbridled powers and they had also received payments from the former. We make it clear that there is no such

M/S. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

charitable or not. Whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11 or whether there is default of section 13 has to be looked into at the time of framing assessment." (para 5.10 at pages 42 and 43 of the Order, page 281 of the paper book). Herein the appellant would like to submit that the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi

KALINGA RELIEF & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2011-12

deduction for expenses of Rs.4,12,96,462/- given to Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences for expenditure incurred on behalf of the assessee for providing free education, fooding, clothing and medical facilities to the tribal students. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee trust is a member of KIIT group of institutions located at Patia, Bhubaneswar. The trust

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

deduction as mentioned in section 2(15). It is not clear whether the software developed were given to the agencies for a commercial consideration. The provisions of section 11 to 13 are meant to exempt the income of genuinely charitable organizations. The provisions of section 13 barring exemption in the case of charitable trust

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

deduction as mentioned in section 2(15). It is not clear whether the software developed were given to the agencies for a commercial consideration. The provisions of section 11 to 13 are meant to exempt the income of genuinely charitable organizations. The provisions of section 13 barring exemption in the case of charitable trust

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

deduction as mentioned in section 2(15). It is not clear whether the software developed were given to the agencies for a commercial consideration. The provisions of section 11 to 13 are meant to exempt the income of genuinely charitable organizations. The provisions of section 13 barring exemption in the case of charitable trust

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

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

deduction of 15% on Gross receipts u/s.11(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl.CIT Vs. A.I.N. Rao Charitable Trust