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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

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 Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good in the context of provisions of section 10(23

M/S. ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. PRINCIPAL CCIT, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhroland Educational & Charitable Trust, Vs. Principal Cit, 2Nd Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Berhampur, Odisha. District – Ganjam (Odisha).

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act goes to prove that the predominant condition for any university or other educational institution for getting approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is that the institution is existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. So far as , instant case is concerned, when by way of amendment

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. PRINCIPAL CCIT, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhroland Educational & Charitable Trust, Vs. Principal Cit, 2Nd Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Berhampur, Odisha. District – Ganjam (Odisha).

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act goes to prove that the predominant condition for any university or other educational institution for getting approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is that the institution is existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. So far as , instant case is concerned, when by way of amendment

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

trust or venture capital company or venture capital fund is assessable, without giving effect to the provisions of section 10, exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish a return of such income of the previous year in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars

ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed

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

23)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee was not granted registration under section 12AA of the Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the basis of claiming exemption. As there is no reply received from the assessee, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the claim of exemption of the generated surplus

TRIDENT ACADEMY OF CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahutrident Academy Of Creative Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Hyderabad Technology, Plot No.F2/B1, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aabtt 0273 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

charitable nature and genuineness of the activity of the Appellant Trust and therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(E) is not legally sustainable. 8. That the finding of Ld. CIT(E) that the auditor has not verified books, bill and vouchers but has merely put onus on the management is factually misunderstood and negates rationality and jurisprudential conscience

SRI SUKHAMAYA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2013-14 Sri Sukhmaya Das, Sri Sukhmaya Das, At-N/3/69, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), 3(1), Irc Irc Village, Village, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aeppd 2993 A Aeppd 2993 A (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /06/20 /2021 O R D E R

23 CPC to the Lower Court merely because it considers that the reasoning of the lower court, in some respects, was wrong. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the parties to the case. When the material was available before the High Court, it should have, itself, decided the appeal one way or the other