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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

charitable objective of the trust and generation of profits which are diverted to those funds. 5.3.4 In view of the above discussion and more particularly, considering the advance of loan in violation of section 13(1)(c) and deposit of the amount in violation of section 13(1)(d

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

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

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 income. Thus the appellant has made application of its gross

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

D E R Per Bench P a g e 1 | 13 M/s. Orissa Computer Academy These are appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the CIT(A),1, Bhubaneswar all dated 4.9.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11 under section 143(3)/263 of the Act and for assessment years

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.

1) to Section 11(5). Section 13 provides exception to Section 11 wherein such an income can be excluded from the exempt income of the trust. Thus, Section 11 to 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

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

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

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. A simple reading of the section 263 of the Act quoted above makes it clear that the power of suo moto revision

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

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

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. A simple reading of the section 263 of the Act quoted above makes it clear that the power of suo moto revision