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 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 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

RONALD 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 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 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

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

M/S. SHIVANI EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

loss of Rs.1,40,96,680/- and the 2 return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 20.5.2011. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance to the same, the ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time

KALINGA RELIEF & CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2011-12

set off against the surplus of subsequent year on the ground that in the case of charitable trust, their income was assessable under self contained code mentioned in section 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act and that the income of the charitable trust was not assessable under the head "Profits and gains from business profession

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