(Para 4) 2. DOT v. Smt. Suniti Singh

299 ITR 183High Court2008#24297 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 43(3)section 251(2)section 2(14)section 48section 45admission of additional evidenceprofits and gains of business or professionsundry creditorssection 251long term capital gainsrevenue expenditurecapital expenditure

Judgments citing (Para 4) 2. DOT v. Smt. Suniti Singh

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1288/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

…of acquisition for the calves in this case, there cannot be a capital gain by their sale as capital asset. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. "(Para 4) 2. DOT v. Smt. Suniti Singh [2008] 299 ITR 183 (Madhya Pradesh)(HC) "...In the case at hand, the entire expenses was attributable to the production of milk. The whole intention of the assessee is to produce milk and sell it and not to produce offsprings and sell them. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to agree with the view taken in the case of Sri Krishna Dairy and Agricultural Farm…

Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad

ITA 1287/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

…of acquisition for the calves in this case, there cannot be a capital gain by their sale as capital asset. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. "(Para 4) 2. DOT v. Smt. Suniti Singh [2008] 299 ITR 183 (Madhya Pradesh)(HC) "...In the case at hand, the entire expenses was attributable to the production of milk. The whole intention of the assessee is to produce milk and sell it and not to produce offsprings and sell them. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to agree with the view taken in the case of Sri Krishna Dairy and Agricultural Farm…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)., Hyderabad vs. Super Dairy Farm., Hyderabad

ITA 1265/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1287 & 1288/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Super Dairy Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1265/Hyd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Assistant Vs. Super Dairy Farm, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Circle – 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aajfs7269L. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

…of acquisition for the calves in this case, there cannot be a capital gain by their sale as capital asset. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. "(Para 4) 2. DOT v. Smt. Suniti Singh [2008] 299 ITR 183 (Madhya Pradesh)(HC) "...In the case at hand, the entire expenses was attributable to the production of milk. The whole intention of the assessee is to produce milk and sell it and not to produce offsprings and sell them. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to agree with the view taken in the case of Sri Krishna Dairy and Agricultural Farm…

(Para 4) 2. DOT v. Smt. Suniti Singh (299 ITR 183) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax