Here is Portfolio page of Ak, with all his work

Dep. claimed by assessee on tech. know-how & DMF allowed by ITAT.
Dec. 08, 2015
Assessee-co. mfd. & sold active pharma. ingredients & its intermediates. In return it declared loss u/s 115JB. In assessm't. AO noticing assessee's internat'nl transact'n referred it to TPO for determining its ALP. AO in assessment determined loss in book of a/c as shown by assessee. CIT(A) u/s 263 disallowed dep. on technical know-how & DMF. On appeal ITAT set aside CIT( A) decision & restored AO's holding, jurisdict'n u/s 263 not justified.
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.
FDI policy & FEMA permit FDI in townships only through equity investments hel...
Nov. 06, 2015
Plaintiff filed Suit against defendant for recovery of dues under Guarantee executed in his favor due to liability arising under OPCDs. HC held, transaction documents establish that transaction of routing FDI through newly interposed Vinca was colourable device & was structured to enable FMO to secure repayment of its FDI amount, contrary to FDI policy & statutory FEMA Regulations. Thus, bank guarantee issued by Vinca is also unenforceable.
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
SAT directed SEBI to completely investigate insider trading case in two months.
Nov. 05, 2015
Appellant was restrained from dealing in securities or accessing Indian Securities market directly or indirectly. On appeal SAT held, prima facie view taken by SEBI that before entering into trades, appellant was privy to UPSI that L&T has fixed the floor price for selling the shares of LTFH at Rs. 70 per share is based on mere presumption & without any sustainable basis. In these circumstances, continuation of the restraint order is unju...
An exporter can claim rebate of duty on both, ie inputs used and goods exported
Apr. 19, 2016
Can an exporter claim excise duty rebate on both the inputs that he uses and the goods that he exports? This burning issue has been silenced by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Spentex Industries Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, where the honorable court has held in favour of the assessee and held that "An EXPORTER can CLAIM REBATE on INPUTS and goods EXPORTED simultaneoulsy.
Assessee's revision of debts case held not to be case of writing off of bad d...
Oct. 29, 2015
Assessee manufactured & sold safety relief valves. During finalization of account discrepancy on account of levy of surcharge of Rs. 1.68 cr. was noticed by it. It was rectified by issue of credit notes. AO disallowed claim of assessee u/s 36(2). On appeal, CIT(A) & ITAT allowed assesse's claim holding that if there was no real income for purpose of tax, no tax could be imposed on hypothetical income. On appeal HC upheld the order of ITAT.
Demand of stay on AO order rejecetd as no reasonable grounds are made out, HC
Dec. 11, 2015
AO made addit'n to assessee's income on account of adjustm't on ALP, disallowance of loss on sale of assets etc. Also, levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. AO granted partial stay on demand by assessee. On writ, HC held, no reasonable grounds made out to direct respondents to grant stay in respect of entire disputed outstanding demand or to grant injunct'n from taking coercive action in recovering demand.
Departmental authorities Jurisdiction had to be founded on Sec. 34 of I.T.Act.
Oct. 30, 2015
Amount assessed as foreign income. Invoking of Sec.34 was denied. On appeal Tribunal held, until war was over, no information to ITO, if business was running & if any income had been earned at all abroad but termination of war & information about existence of foreign business, constituted definite information which justified taking of Sec. 34. On appeal HC upheld it stating that Sec. 34 was validly applied for relevant assessment year.
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.00...