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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Section 13(1)(c):- "(c) In the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable or religious

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

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

C) E Accumulation - - - of 15% (A*15%) F Taxable income (D-E) (1,59,34,478) (1,84,63,954) (79,41,522) From the above details it can be clearly seen that during the captioned AY.s the appellant has applied its gross receipts entirely for its charitable objects in India. In fact the appellant has made excess expenditure over

DY.CIT(EXP), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA COMPUTER ACADEMY, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri P.M. Jagtap & C.M. Garg

section 13(1)(c). In case of a charitable trust, if it is found that provisions of section 13(1

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.

13 provides for application of income by a trust for charitable purposes and to that extent, subject to certain conditions, income of the trust is treated to be exempted from taxation. The incomes which are computed under the various heads of income, the mode of computation has been provided under respective sections. 7.2 Here we are concerned 5 with Section

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

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

c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assesse, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person

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

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

c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assesse, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person