Here is Portfolio page of Ak, with all his work

AO cannot pass order suo motu u/s 154, once same passed by superior authority.
Nov. 03, 2015
Assessee showed property purchsed in urbanized village in income assessment. AO made additions & charged interest. A.O. suo motu passed order u/s 154, where he clarified charging of interest u/s 234B & 234C. On appeal CIT(A) & ITAT disallowed it. On appeal HC while upholding ITAT decision & relying on decision Addl. CIT v.India Tin Industries (P.) Ltd. held that AO cannot pass order suo motu u/s 154, once same passed by superior authority.-000289
Income addit'n by AO required fresh considerat'n, thus matter remanded to AO.
Dec. 24, 2015
Assessee-Co. was running stock ex. It was collecting listing fee from Co's listed in its stock ex. at prescribed rate. Assessee followed mercantile system of accounting. On appeal CIT(A) deleted addit'ns. On appeal ITAT held, In absence of explanations of assessee as to how element of uncertainty exists in respect of listing fee receivable from each of Co., not possible to adjudicate this issue. Thus, issue required fresh examinat'n at end of AO.-0…
Allowed of only 1% exp. towards brand building exp. held correct by HC.
Dec. 11, 2015
Assessee received royalty against brand lease agreem't for tobacco related products.AO held, reason for booking said advert. exp. was to inflate profit of brand lease holder Co's. Thus, he only allowed 1% exp. towards brand building exp. CIT(A) deleted disallowance made by AO. ITAT upheld it. On appeal HC held, wh. assessee was wise & prudent in incurring exp., is not within domain of examinat'n by AO, unless premitted & allowed under statu…
Profits in absence of evidenced, must be regarded as remittances of profits. SC
Oct. 30, 2015
ITO held profit assessable to tax u/s 4(I)(b)(iii) as income profits & gains accrued to appellant without British India before beginning of previous year & received in British India during relevant accounting year & then assessed. On appeal Tribunal upheld it stating, profits in absence of any evidenced adduced by appellant to contrary, must be regarded as remittances of profits. HC dismissed application u/s 66(2). SC on appeal upheld it.-010403
Admission of writ denied on ground that same would be abated u/s 245HA.
Oct. 30, 2015
Settlement Commission ordered settlement applications to be proceeded further on ground that settlement applications were invalid due to incomplete & false disclosure of all material facts of income & manner in which income was earned. On writ HC held, as time - limit of 18 months stipulated in section 245D(4A) will lapse. Thus, settlement applications would abate u/s 245HA, Hence, writ petition at could not to be entertained. -000279
Commissioner is to perform quasi-judicial functions to decide allegations, HC.
Nov. 02, 2015
AO passed assessment order u/s 158BC on undisclosed income. Assessee filed application before Settlement Commission. It passed order accepting amount offered by assessee as undisclosed income. Show cause notice issued by commissioner. On writ HC held, it was Commissioner who was ultimately to perform quasi-judicial functions as per provisio. to decide about correctness or otherwise of allegations made by him. Show cause notice rightly issued.-010548
RBI empowered u/s 35A to issue guidelines for asset classification as NPA.
Nov. 04, 2015
Petition filed to declare Guidelines issued by RBI unconstitutional by which Petitioner's Firm account had been classified as NPA. HC held, u/s 35A of Banking Regulation Act, RBI is empowered to issue directions from time to time. Even if source of power is not mentioned in document that by itself will not render document bereft of legal force. There is no doubt that power exists, with RBI to issue, such like, guidelines for asset classification.
View presented by AO held to be possible & plausible one, HC
Dec. 30, 2015
During search, various documents & loose papers belonging to assessee were seized. Assessee was main director of pvt. Co. 'MCP' which was engaged in construct'n business. CIT(A) held order passed by AO erroneous. On appeal ITAT upheld it. On appeal, Once inquiry was made & view taken by AO is demonstrated to be possible & plausible one, then Tribunal's order can't be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on face of record.0004…
Comparable Co. selected by AO for TP adjustm't rejected becoz. of diff. activity
Dec. 08, 2015
Assessee provided investment, advisory & other ancillary support services to its AEs. To determine ALP of internat'nl transact'ns, it had identified four Co's. as comparables to it. But, TPO had selected a new company & proposed TP addition.In final order, AO made TP additio'ns. DRP confirmed it. On appeal ITAT held, activities of ICSL are akin to job of merchant banker. Therefore, ICSL has to be excluded for TPA for year under consideration.-000325
Definition of "Manufacture" (for Excise purposes) is different for jewellers
Apr. 19, 2016
Generally, for Excise purposes, manufacture means "a process in which original goods are transformed into some other goods which are distinctly known in commercial market". However, this definition is not complete when we think of jewellery manufacturing. In case of jewellery,"branding" of jewellery is considered as manufacturing. So, if a jewellery trader purchases a necklace & puts "his name" on it then he would be called as a manufacturer.