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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

LN HOTA & COMPANY,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 10(22) are only applicable to the assessment year 1988-89 and were omitted. Therefore, we find the assessee cannot rely on above decisions and we shall follow the law and rules in force from assessment year 1999-2000. Considering the apparent facts and materials on record, and the judicial decisions, we are of the opinion that

BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,CUTTACK vs. ITO, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

section 10(22) are only applicable to the assessment year 1988-89 and were omitted. Therefore, we find the assessee cannot rely on above decisions and we shall follow the law and rules in force from assessment year 1999-2000. Considering the apparent facts and materials on record, and the judicial decisions, we are of the opinion that

M/S. MAHASAKTI FOUNDATION,KALAHANDI vs. ACIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s.147 of the Act submitted that the registration u/s.12AA of the Act was granted to the assessee by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur vide his order dated 28.5.2013 w.e.f. 29.11.2012. He submitted that sub- section (2) of Section 12A of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007 provides that where an application

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10 during reassessment proceeding is filing of the same within the time allowed for furnishing the return of income under section 139(4). Therefore, the revenue has not been able to point out any reasons why the aforesaid two decisions should not be applied in the facts of the present case to reject the appeal. [Para 12

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10 during reassessment proceeding is filing of the same within the time allowed for furnishing the return of income under section 139(4). Therefore, the revenue has not been able to point out any reasons why the aforesaid two decisions should not be applied in the facts of the present case to reject the appeal. [Para 12

SOUMENDRA KUMAR MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

10,99,58,800/-. The\nsearch and seizure action under section 132 of I.T. Act, 1961\nwas conducted at premises of the assessee on 20.10.2016. In\nresponse to notice under section 153A the assessee filed\nreturn declaring total income of Rs. 9,89,35,221/-. Order under\nsection 153A r.w.s. 143(3) was passed by Id. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income