Gujarat Court September 2003 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.
Mehsana Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR805
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule.2. Dr. Sonia Hurrash waives service of notice for respondent-Bank. At the joint request of the learned Counsels for the parties, all these petitions are heard and decided finally by this common judgment and order.3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vakharia with Ms. Avani Mehta for petitioner in all these matters and learned Advocate General, Mr. S. N. Shelat with Dr. Hurra for respondents.4. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'National Commission') allowing First Appeal Nos. 418 to 428 of 1994 filed by the respondent-State Bank of India against the judgment and order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State (for short 'State Commission') allowing the complaint Nos. 186 to 196 of 1993 filed by the petitioner-Co-operative Bank against the respondent-State Bank of India and di...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pinnacle Finance Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Guj)446; [2004]268ITR395(Guj)
D.A. Meeta, J.1. The following questions have been proposed by the appellant-Revenue stated to arise out of the Tribunal's order dt. 13th March, 2002 in ITA No. 3614/Ahd/1995:'(i) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee engaged in the business of lease finance is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the IT Act, 1961, on the assets merely on signing of the lease agreement even though the asset is not put to use in the relevant year?(ii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding that, since 40 per cent depreciation is granted by the AO, the order of the CIT(A) did not call for any interference disregarding the aspect that the depreciation was granted at 40 per cent without prejudice to the main contention of the non-allowability of depreciation in the relevant year.'2. The assessment year is 1992-93 and the relevant accounting period is year ended 31st March, 1992. The assessee is a company carrying on business of financing, investment, leas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›