Here is Portfolio page of Ak, with all his work

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…
Assessee's deduct'n claim u/s 10A of I.T.Act allowed by ITAT after denial by AO.
Dec. 24, 2015
Assessee developed & traded software & hardwares. In return declared total loss. TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3) without making any adjustm't. AO denied assessee's claim of deduct'n u/s 10A of Act. However, CIT(A) allowed it on appeal. On appeal HC upheld it holding that, assessee's claim for deduc'n could not be denied unless claim was withdrawn right from initial assessm't year. A.O was directed to recompute the book profit u/s115JB of I.T. …
Remember: Excise could be charged on a good, only if it satisfies these 3 points
Apr. 19, 2016
Government can charge excise duty on a good if it satisfies the following 3 conditions:1. The good should have been manufactured.2. The good should be marketable.3. The good should be listed in the first schedule and the second schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Reduct'n in net profit rate by CIT(A) held justified as per facts of case,ITAT
Dec. 08, 2015
Assessee-company executed work contracts of civil construct'n, labor supply & shares trade. AO rejected books of a/c of assessee on ground of non product'n of complete vouchers & thumb impression of all payers were not in register.Thus, calculated net profit at 8% of gross contract receipt . CIT(A) reduced it to 4%. On appeal HC held, definitely there would be lower profit in case of assessee. Hence, CIT(A) rightly estimated net profit rate…
Premises of Sequoia Capital have been searched by Enforcement department of FEMA
Apr. 20, 2016
Sequoia Capital is a minority share holder in Vasan Eye care, a Chennai based healthcare group. The enforcement department (ED) of FEMA is already probing Vasan for alleged FEMA violations. This has necessitated ED to look into Sequoia Capital too. Sequoia which calls itself "a startup building partner to founders in India who want to turn business ideas into enduring companies" has confirmed the action and is cooperating in all respects.
Additions made by AO on ground of unexplained investment upheld by HC.
Dec. 11, 2015
Assessee purchased plot for consideration of Rs. 3.70 lakhs. After survey u/s 133A, filed a revised return, declaring sale considerat'n at Rs. 38 lakhs. AO opined that there was unexplained investment of Rs. 34.30 lakhs on part of assessee & made addit'n in light of facts. CIT(A) & ITAT upheld it on appeal. On appeal HC held, assessee was unable to refer to any contradict'n in statements of his vendors or any evidence to rebut material on r…
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
Assessees claim of 25% Depreciation was rejected on ground of wrong valuation.
Oct. 30, 2015
Assessee claimed 25% depreciation on intangible assets. AO accepted it. Survey u/s 133A was carried out on assessee. Certificate issued by valuer was only for internal use of company & could not be used for claiming depreciation. AO issued notice u/s 148. On writ HC held that notices have not been issued on basis of change of opinion but on basis of fresh tangible material obtained during survey. Thus AO was correct in issuing notices.-000278
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
Opinion at time of certificate grant can't debar AO from initiating proceedings.
Nov. 02, 2015
Assessee company worked on contract for PGCIL. AO reopened assessment. Assessee objected. AO rejected it on ground that authorization issued u/s 195/197 provisional in nature. HC held, no return had been filed. As per Sec.195 &197, clear that if any opinion expressed at time of grant of certificate, it is tentative or provisional or interim in nature would not debar AO from initiating proceeding u/s 147 due to change of opinion. -010551