Here is Portfolio page of Ak, with all his work

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
Amt. received on parking charges was held assessable to tax in assessm'nt, HC
Dec. 09, 2015
Assessee was builder & developer. It followed project completion method for paying its taxes. AO issued notice u/s 148 on ground of non-filling of return & income received from parking charges was assessed to tax. On appeal ITAT held, amt. received on parking charges has nothing to do with assessee's project & was assessable to tax in assessm'nt. This has been accepted by assessee. & upheld levying of interest too. On appeal, HC u...
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
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
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.
If done after banking hrs, bid amount can be deposited on next day of auction.
Nov. 05, 2015
On non payment of Loan amount. Bank auctioned mortgaged property of company. Petition was filed for setting aside sale. HC held, officer authorized by bank, which was conducting auction proceedings, had no option but to call upon second respondent to deposit 25 per cent of bid amount by next day. Such deposit has to be treated as deposit made immediately after bid of second respondent had been declared successful. Hence, petition was dismis...
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.
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....
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
Selling in brand name held no bar to claim benefit by manufacturing activity.
Nov. 03, 2015
Assessee manufactured electronic goods & claimed deduction u/s 80-IC. AO disallowed it, as only brand name of parent company was traded & manufacturing activities were inadequate. Thus, LCD monitor claimed to be manufactured by assessee was not covered under Schedule XIV. On appeal ITAT & HC allowed deduction holding that selling product in brand name was no bar to claim benefit on account of manufacturing activity of assembling components. -000297