Mumbai Court September 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S.S. Laxmibaisaheb N. Patwardhan Ranisaheb of Miraj Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)1; [1984]150ITR289(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN185(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The question that is referred to us at the instance of the assessee in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding the amount of Rs. 12,000 received out of the privy purse amount from the Raja of Miraj (Senior) as income of the applicant for the assessment year 1969-70 ?'2. The assessee is the wife of the Rajasaheb of Miraj. He received an annual privy purse of Rs. 85,8000. The assessee received during the assessment year 1969-70 a sum of Rs. 12,000 out of the privy purse. The ITO held that she had a claim for maintenance on the Rajasaheb and that the privy purse was being received by him since the merger of the Sangli State. According to a circular of the Central Board of Revenue, the amount of 12,000 having been received by the assessee in pursuance of an actionable claim for maintenance, was assessed as income. In appeal, the AAC upheld the ITO's or...
Yeshwant Prasad Popular Education Society Vs. Shashikala D. Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR21; 1983MhLJ961
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, the Education Society, against the order passed by the School Tribunal, Pune, overruling the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners that the appeal filed before the Tribunal by the respondent-teacher is not maintainable in view of the fact that the order of termination was already challenged by the respondent-teacher before the Deputy Director of Education as well as the Joint Director under Rule 77.3(vii) and (viii) as well as Rule 77.10 of the Secondary School Code and the said appeals were heard and decided on the merits by the authorities concerned.2. It appears to be an admitted position that the respondent No. 1 who was an assistant teacher in a school run by the petitioners society was removed from service after due enquiry on July 12, 1977. The respondent No. 1 teacher challenged the said order of removal by filing an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education under Rule 77.3 of the Code. The Depu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›