Here is Portfolio page of Ankur, with all his work

Works manager & supervisors held to be in category of workers, HC
Dec. 24, 2015
Assessee mfd. polythene bags & tubes. It claimed deduct'n u/s 80-IB. Assessee employed only 8 workers in manufacturing process, AO disallowed deduct'n. On appeal CIT(A) & ITAT allowed it. On appeal ITAT upheld it holding, works manager is like highly technical qualified worker having managerial responsibility, likewise, supervisor is also like highly skilled supervisory worker. Therefore, both these persons fall within the categories of w...
CIT(A) method to arrive at fair market value of plot, held better, ITAT
Dec. 24, 2015
Assessee-Co. sold its factory land. It reported fair market value (FMV) of land at Rs.14.12 cr. on basis of report of reg. valuer &, worked out capital gain. AO valued it 1.7 cr on basis of unused land. CIT(A) rejected assesse's valuation report & calulated FMV 2.78 cr. On appeal ITAT held, CIT(A) had adopted probable method for arriving at FMV of plot & that annual rate of appreciat'n method. His method held better than method adopte...
No explanation for delay in amending petition, could'nt be condoned, held HC.
Nov. 04, 2015
Writ petition filed by trustees.They expired during proceedings. New trustees took over. They filed application for amendment in petition. Delay took place due to which condonation of delay was sought on ground that AOR informed them that records were not available. HC held, comparing with other entries in register, found that rule in writ petition was not discharged for default. Delay of 32 years was unexplained, thus can't be condoned.
As assessees had insufficient cause, thus delay in filling case was not condoned
Dec. 11, 2015
In search, documents, a/c books & papers seized from office of assessees. AO issued notice u/s 153A for block assessm't proceedings. AO passed assessm't order by making addit'ns. CIT(A) & ITAT upheld AO's order. On appeal HC found, assessees have not shown sufficient cause for condoning delay. Parameters laid down by SC in in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy 2013 (5) CTC 547 delay held not to be cond...
Assessee directed to show records on which change in accounting policy made.
Nov. 23, 2015
Assessee filed return declaring loss. Assessment completed u/s 143(3) &Sec.115JB. AO reopened assessment on ground of no change in accounting policy regarding dep. AO made addit'n to book profit on account of applying reduced rate of dep. CIT(A) upheld it. On appeal ITAT held, issue on merits is set aside to record of AO for deciding afresh after verification & examination of relevant record, which assessee has not produced before AO & Tribunal.-...
Roll over charges represent diff. arising due to change in foreign ex. rates. SC
Nov. 06, 2015
Assessee-Co procured foreign currency loan for business expansion. AO disallowed roll over premium charges paid by assessee for foreign ex. forward contracts to bank on ground, charges were incurred in connection with purchase of capital asset. Hence, were inadmissible for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) or u/s 37. On appeal CIT & HC allowed it. On appeal SC held, Roll over charges represent difference arising on account of change in foreign ex. rates....
AO order of withdrawl of benefit of investment allowance held incorrect by HC.
Nov. 02, 2015
Assessee was granted benefit of investment allowance u/s 32A. Under a scheme industrial units held by assessee were transferred to other companies. AO passed order u/s 32A(5) withdrawing benefit of investment allowance. On appeal CIT(A) allowed it. However, ITAT disallowed holding that scheme of arrangement did not result in 'transfer' u/s 32A(5). On appeal HC upheld ITAT decision holding that there was transfer within meaning of Section 32A(5). ...
Sum paid by Co. to lessor was not revenue exp. made for working cap. asset, SC
Nov. 14, 2015
Assessee Co. acquired from State Govt. lease of limestone quarries for manufacture of cement. In a/c year Co. paid its lessor as per two covenants & claimed to deduct sum in computation of its business profits u/s 10(2)(xv). AAC, ITO & Tribunal rejected it. On reference HC upheld it. SC upheld it too holding that sum agreed to be paid by Co. to lessor was not revenue exp. which was made by Co. for working capital asset which it had acquired.-010366
AO held erroneous in invoking Sec. 43 for determining actual cost in deal.
Nov. 02, 2015
Assessee acquired business of EMD at slump price. AO found, assessee enhanced value of assets as WDV of assets shown & disallowed excess depreciation. On appeal, CIT(A) held, there was no question of evading tax liability by assessee even if lower depreciation was granted. On appeal, ITAT upheld order of CIT(A). On appeal, HC upheld CIT(A) & ITAT decision stating that assessee had no income for it to reduce its tax liabilities by way of transfer....
Set-off claim of assessee disallowed by AO, allowed u/s 73 of I.T. Act by HC .
Dec. 11, 2015
Assessee was share broker & member of NSE & BSE Ltd. In return showed loss. Its set off claim was disallowed by AO as it was a pvt. Co. & not banking Co. CIT(A) upheld it. Tribunal held loss suffered as business loss. On appeal HC held, prohibit'n u/s 73 is attracted only to set off loss in speculative business against profit from other business, because loss from speculation business should be set off only from a profit of speculatio...