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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

charitable objective clause and in pursuant to that the assessee trust is running colleges where seven professional/educational courses such as B. Tech, M.Tech, M.Pharma and taught to the students. Ld. AR submitted that the AO has made baseless formula and incorrect allegations to deny benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the assessee and for invoking provisions of Section

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

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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

11-1997 through a registered amended Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012. 4. Ld. Pr. CCIT declared the amended registered Trust Deed dated 26-03-2012 vide which certain objects, particularly the non-educational objectives, were deleted, as invalid on the grounds that the Governing Body Members of assessee Trust did not have mandate to delete or remove

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 purpose" given in section 2(15) continues to remain the same. The provisions of section 13(1) are thus not directly relevant in this regard. On the other hand, the said section begins with the words "Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude, from the total income of the previous year

ORISSA COMPUTER ACADEMY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

4) and 11(4A) to deny benefits of section 11 to the appellant. The AO observes that the accounts of the society and educational institutions have not been maintained separately. Thus, the assessee is not satisfying the condition of section 11(4A), hence ineligible for benefits of section 11. These observations of the AO have not been contradicted

ORISSA COMPUTER ACADEMY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

4) and 11(4A) to deny benefits of section 11 to the appellant. The AO observes that the accounts of the society and educational institutions have not been maintained separately. Thus, the assessee is not satisfying the condition of section 11(4A), hence ineligible for benefits of section 11. These observations of the AO have not been contradicted

ORISSA COMPUTER ACADEMY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

4) and 11(4A) to deny benefits of section 11 to the appellant. The AO observes that the accounts of the society and educational institutions have not been maintained separately. Thus, the assessee is not satisfying the condition of section 11(4A), hence ineligible for benefits of section 11. These observations of the AO have not been contradicted