Here is Portfolio page of Rajeev, with all his work

Notice of AO treating assessee in default quashed by HC in writ.
Dec. 11, 2015
Petitioner is public Ltd. Co.ran business of financial services. TRO issued notice to petitioner indicating that certain amt. was due from petitioner to assessee. petitioner filed writ for quashing of notice, whereby TRO treated petitioner as assessee in default & for quashing proceedings u/s 226(3) of Income Tax Act. HC held, order of TRO, treating petitioner as assessee in default can't be sustained & is quashed & attachment order too.
AO held unjustified in refusing to renew registration without hearing assessee.
Nov. 03, 2015
Assessee was partnership firm. Assessee filed income in delayed time due to which notice u/s 142(1) & Sec.148 were issued. AO refused continuation of registration u/s 144 & 139. CIT & Tribunal upheld it. On appeal HC held, AO not right in refusing to renew registration without issuing show-cause notice & without affording any opportunity of hearing to assessee for explaining delay in furnishing declaration within specified time u/s 184(7).-010561
Additions made by AO held correct by HC as based upon right reasoning.
Dec. 08, 2015
Assessee dealt in medical equipm't. During assessm't AO made addit'n of income of electro medical maintenance center & other addit'ns. On appeal CIT(A) deleted two. However, ITAT reversed it on appeal & held AO correct. On appeal HC held, reasoning of ITAT which is based on material, which AO found on verification of bank statement & there records for relevant assessment year, was correct. Thus, tribunal held justified in confirming A...
CIT held right in annulling order of successor AO as was overruling previous AO.
Nov. 03, 2015
On notice of fact that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. It was re-opened u/s 147 & AO passed order u/s 143(3). On appeal CIT held against AO. On appeal ITAT allowed order passed by AO. On appeal HC held that by invocation of Sec.147, successor AO sat over decision of earlier AO order passed u/s 143(3) with respect to issues sought to be covered under section 147. Thus, CIT was justified in anulling order of successor AO.-000300
On proving his innocence, accused was acquitted of offences under FERA & FEMA...
Nov. 05, 2015
In search & seizure, enforcement officer seized Rs 4 lacks. Show cause notice & summons were issued to accused. Trial Court acquitted him on basis of oral & testamentary evidence. On appeal HC upheld Trial court decision stating that accused has proved his innocence by way of marking documents. His confession was obtained by coercion. Therefore acquitted for offence u/s 9(1)(b) & 9(1)(d) & Sec 56(1)(i) of FERA Act & sub-Se...
AO held incorrect as profit earned by assessee not taxable as business income.
Dec. 30, 2015
Assessee sold shares of 'T' Ltd. to foreign Co.Income arising from sale of shares was declared as short term capital gain. AO opined that profit earned by assessee was taxable as business income. CIT(A) confirmed order of AO. On appeal ITAT held, assessee made investm't in shares with intention to earn dividend income on appreciation of price of shares. Therefore, it can't be said that assessee was doing business. Thus, AO action held incorrect.-...
HC has no jurisdiction in penalty imposition case, if on cogent reasons by ITAT.
Nov. 02, 2015
Penalty was imposed on non production of books of accounts. On appeal HC dismissed the appeal holding that where appellant challenged sufficiency of evidence only & there is some material, justifying order once passed by Tribunal, HC not to interfere in matter where penalty has been imposed legally on basis of cogent reasons. In this case question of law is not involved but the appellant challenged the sufficiency of evidence only.-010553
AO had no reason to believe, income escaped assessm't, thus disallowance made,HC
Dec. 09, 2015
Petition challenged notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, purporting to reopen assessm't & notice u/s 142(1) questioning disallowance to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act of amt. of Rs. 49.40 cr. for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194H. HC held, as per Jagran Prakashan Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (TDS) [2012] 345 ITR 288, AO had no reason to believe, income escaped assessm't on ground, there is disallowance liable to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduct'n of TDS u...
As source & nature of amount received not proved, So held of assessable nature.
Nov. 02, 2015
ITO held amount as concealed income & imposed tax rejecting assessee's explanation. On appeal Tribunal & HC upheld ITO decision. On appeal SC held, assessee fails to prove satisfactorily source & nature of certain amount of cash received during accounting year, ITO is entitled to draw inference that receipts are of assessable nature. Thus, conclusion of Tribunal was amply warranted by facts of case & no ground for interfering with that finding.-0...