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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

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

35 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 409 of l997 dated 19.11.1997. On perusal of the Trust Deed, it is seen that the objects of the Trust contain both educational as well as noneducational c1auses. A plain reading of the objects of the Trust shows the following non-educational and mixed purposes: “Clause 8: To train

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

Charitable Trust Fund IR 252 indeed a bonafide assessee should not be precluded from switching over to another system of accounting which he find convenient and which would reflect real Income. g) Method must be applied consistently: No particular basis of valuation is suitable for all types of business, but whatever the basis adopted, it should be applied consistently

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

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

charitable purpose. .During the year under consideration the assessee has been found to be neither a trust nor an institution (society) but a full fledged agency under the Govt of Orissa vide its resolution dated 05.08.2003..Hence the application of the assessee for registration under section 12AA of the I.T.Act is treated as infructuous and stand disposed off." The appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CUTTACK, CUTTACK vs. PARADEEP PORT TRUST, JAGATSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

section 2(15) of the I.T.Act 1961 can only be considered to be applicable for A/Y: 2009-10 onwards and not to be applicable for any past assessment years. 05.Whether in case of trust/AOP/Institution claiming to be engaged in charitable activities for the purpose of computation of its net income/utilization of the income for charitable purposes/ accumulation of un-utilized

M/S PARAPIT PORT TRUST,CUTTACK vs. ADDL. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

section 2(15) of the I.T.Act 1961 can only be considered to be applicable for A/Y: 2009-10 onwards and not to be applicable for any past assessment years. 05.Whether in case of trust/AOP/Institution claiming to be engaged in charitable activities for the purpose of computation of its net income/utilization of the income for charitable purposes/ accumulation of un-utilized

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 Commission (by whatever name called) will require similar consideration – i.e., whether it is at cost with a nominal mark- up or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the mischief of “commercial activity”. However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have