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

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

set of 14 appeals (except ITAs No 469-471/CTK/2019) are held as not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same stand reversed therefore. These two assessees’ corresponding appeals seeking section 10(23C)(vi) approval are allowed as necessary corollary ordered accordingly. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as taking into consideration learned coordinate bench

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

loss of revenue". One of the condition which a charitable trust claiming exemption u/s.11 has to comply with is that it cannot advance any lean without interest or security to any concern in which the specified persons u/s.13(3) are interested. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant-trust advanced an amount of Rs.91

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

loss of revenue". One of the condition which a charitable trust claiming exemption u/s.11 has to comply with is that it cannot advance any lean without interest or security to any concern in which the specified persons u/s.13(3) are interested. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant-trust advanced an amount of Rs.91

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

ODISHA SPORTS DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION COMPANY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION WARD, JEYPORE

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.496-498/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Odisha Sports Development & Vs Dcit, Exemption Ward, Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar Western Stand, Kalinga Stadium Bhubaneswar, Odisha Pan No. :Aabco 9237 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated All Dated 30.09.2024, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1069244316(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244321(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244327(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar Of The Assessee That The Assessee Is A Company Promoted By The Government Of Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Company’S Accounts Were Audited By Statutory Auditors. It Was The 2

loss account does not suffice and discharge the onus of the assessee to prove the utilization of funds. Compliance The details of expenditure wise GL was never asked by AO earlier Hence, not famished. However, it is now attached at Annexure 1 4 ITA No.496-498/CTK/2024 we would like to humbly submit that during the financial year 2016- 17 the trust