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

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

27. Hon‘ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- ―11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: :- 17 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

charitable purpose and development of education. Further, we are also unable to see any details or documents or trust deeds or utilisation of money by the donee to substantiate the explanation of the assessee-donor enabling the assessee-trust to get the benefit of proposition rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts, coordinate benches of the Tribunal and CBDT instruction

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

charitable purpose and development of education. Further, we are also unable to see any details or documents or trust deeds or utilisation of money by the donee to substantiate the explanation of the assessee-donor enabling the assessee-trust to get the benefit of proposition rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts, coordinate benches of the Tribunal and CBDT instruction

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

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

charitable purpose the aggregate sum of Rs. 1.70.369. Leaving a balance of Rs. 87,910. The question is whether the assessee is entitled to accumulate twenty five percent of Rs. 2.57,376 contends, or twenty five percent of Rs. 87,010 as the revenue appeared to contend. 2. Considering the facts of the case and ratio laid down

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

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

charitable purpose the aggregate sum of Rs. 1.70.369. Leaving a balance of Rs. 87,910. The question is whether the assessee is entitled to accumulate twenty five percent of Rs. 2.57,376 contends, or twenty five percent of Rs. 87,010 as the revenue appeared to contend. 2. Considering the facts of the case and ratio laid down

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

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

charitable purpose the aggregate sum of Rs. 1.70.369. Leaving a balance of Rs. 87,910. The question is whether the assessee is entitled to accumulate twenty five percent of Rs. 2.57,376 contends, or twenty five percent of Rs. 87,010 as the revenue appeared to contend. 2. Considering the facts of the case and ratio laid down

ORISSA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

charitable and OF general public utility and on the same basis, he has granted registration u/s.12A of the Act to the appellant from the assessment years 1998-99 to 2008-09. The barriers created by the ld CIT(E) from 2009-2010 onwards , where he denied to continue the same registration is also not sustainable on this count that