DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

charitable activities of the trust and brought to tax the excess of income over expenditure as returned by the appellant trust. He also made separate portion of development fees and unaccounted academic fees as per the search materials. The CIT(Appeals), Bhubaneswar allowed the appeal of the appellant trust by holding that section

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

charitable activities of the trust and brought to tax the excess of income over expenditure as returned by the appellant trust. He also made separate portion of development fees and unaccounted academic fees as per the search materials. The CIT(Appeals), Bhubaneswar allowed the appeal of the appellant trust by holding that section

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

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

CESCO EMPLOYEES GRATUITY TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. CPC ( CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Cesco Employees Gratuity Cesco Employees Gratuity Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru Cpc, Bengaluru 2Nd Nd Trust, Floor, Idco Tower, Tower, Janpath, Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaatc 5953 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr : Shri Charan Dass, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

section 12A registration. For compliance with Income tax rules, the assignment of filing Annual Income Tax return was entrusted to professional. They carryout the work and accordingly the provisions are complied with. But for the year under review, they filed wrong ITR and since the Pass word was not shared by them, the defective notices forwarded by the CPC could

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

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. DISCOVERTURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust (supra) are of no relevance because these judgements are of two different High Courts but this aspect of the matter is covered against the assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court cited by the Ld. D.R. 14. The 2nd submission of the Ld. A.R. in the written submission is this that requirement of filing

SRI SUKHAMAYA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2013-14 Sri Sukhmaya Das, Sri Sukhmaya Das, At-N/3/69, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), 3(1), Irc Irc Village, Village, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aeppd 2993 A Aeppd 2993 A (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /06/20 /2021 O R D E R

Charitable Trust (supra). Ld D.R. did not object to the hearing of appeal on merits,. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties. 7. At the outset, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has invoked wrong section i.e. section 68, which is not attracted in the present case. Since

YUVODAYA CHARITABLE TRUST,BOLANGIR vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2016-17

Charitable Vs. CIT (Exemptions), Trust,At: Basudev Bhawan, Hyderabad PO/Dist: Bolangir. PAN/GIR No. AAATY 2282 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 16 /02/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28 /02/ 2017 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against

DARUL ULOOM MUJAHID E MILLAT EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST,BHADRAK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2025-26 Darul Uloom Mujahid E Millat Vs. Cit (Exemption), Hyderabad Educational & Welfare Trust, At/Po/Ps- Dhamnagar, Dist: Bhadrak Pan/Gir No. Aadtd 1777 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad Dated 16.12.2024 Rejecting The Application In Form No.10Ab For Grant Of Registration U/S.80G Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2025-16. 2. Facts In Brief Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed An E- Application In Form No.10Ab Seeking Registration U/S.80G Of The Act. The Ld Cit(E) Issued Notice U/S. 80G(5)(Iii) To The Assessee To Produce

section 80G of the Act. Accordingly, he rejected the application for grant of registration u/s 80G of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that before the ld CIT(E), the assessee had furnished all the documents for grant of approval for registration u/s. 80G of the Act. It is prayed that

SAMPARK,SAILASREE VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. COMMISSIONER-OF-INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Rl Reddy(Kz) & And Rajesh Kumarita No.133/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year :2023-24 Samprak Vs. Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad At: At: 311/4370, 311/4370, Niladri Niladri Vihar, Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Vihar, Bhubaneswar 751021 Pan/Gir No. Aaajs 3164 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri : Shri Sanjay Behura & Ananta Narayan Singhbabu Narayan Singhbabu, Ars Re Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborthy, Ashim Kr Chakraborthy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/202 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/202 /2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Com The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)), Hyderabad Dated 09/12/2024 In Appeal No.Cit(Exemption),Hyd/2024 Cit(Exemption),Hyd/2024-25/12Aa/11704, Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S. Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12Ab 12Ab & Dated 11/12/2024 11/12/2024 In In Appeal Appeal No. No.Cit(Exemption),Hyd/2024 Exemption),Hyd/2024-25/12Aa/11703 Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S. 80G Of The Act, Passed Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S. 80G Of The Act, Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S. 80G Of The Act, For Assessment Year For Assessment Year 2023-24. P A G E 1 | 4 Ita No.133/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year :2023-24

charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee trust, which is in violation of provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Hence, the ld CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of registration u/s. 12AB and 80

KALINGA DESIAGRO FOUNDATION,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee trust, which is in violation of provisions of section 12A and 80G of the act. Hence, the ld CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of registration u/s. 12A and 80

KALONGO DESIAGRO FOUNDATION,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee trust, which is in violation of provisions of section 12A and 80G of the act. Hence, the ld CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of registration u/s. 12A and 80

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

ACADEMY OF DEVELOPMENT & APPLIED RESEARCH FOUNDATION TRUST (ADARF),BHUBANESWAR vs. COMMISSIONER-OF-INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar & Assessment Year :2024-25

charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee trust, which is in violation of provisions of section 80G of the Act. Hence, the ld CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of registration u/s 80

THE PRAJATANTRA PRACHAR SAMITY,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

80 /CTK/2009 /CTK/2009 Assessment Year Assessment Years :1985-86, 1989-90 & 1993 90 & 1993-94 The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-2(1), Beharibag, Beharibag, Chandini Chandini Chowk, Chowk, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AAATP 2215 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.Agarqwal S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.Agarqwal, ARs Revenue

THE PRAJATANTRA PRACHAR SAMITY,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

80 /CTK/2009 /CTK/2009 Assessment Year Assessment Years :1985-86, 1989-90 & 1993 90 & 1993-94 The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-2(1), Beharibag, Beharibag, Chandini Chandini Chowk, Chowk, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AAATP 2215 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.Agarqwal S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.Agarqwal, ARs Revenue

THE PRAJATANTRA PRACHAR SAMITY,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

80 /CTK/2009 /CTK/2009 Assessment Year Assessment Years :1985-86, 1989-90 & 1993 90 & 1993-94 The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-2(1), Beharibag, Beharibag, Chandini Chandini Chowk, Chowk, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AAATP 2215 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.Agarqwal S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.Agarqwal, ARs Revenue