Here is Portfolio page of Rajeev, with all his work

Contingent liability w/r/o unexpired risk, not "accruing liability" u/r 2. SC
Oct. 30, 2015
Assessee-Co. ran different insurance business. On question whether amounts shown by insurance company as reserves for unexpired risks on pending policies were liable to be deducted u/r 2, HC held against assessee. On appeal SC held, reserve liability can't have contributed to running of business. Can't be held to be "accruing liability" within rule 2. Hence, contingent liability in respect of unexpired risk is not "accruing liability" u/r 2.-010425
On proving his innocence, accused was acquitted of offences under FERA & FEMA A…
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-Sec.…
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.-010…
Perverse finding of fact based on no evidence can be set aside in appeal held HC
Nov. 03, 2015
Assessee claimed deduction of staff medical & welfare expenses, power & full expense & laminating expenses. AO disallowed part of it. On appeal CIT deleted disallowance & Tribunal modified order. On appeal HC held, settled law , if finding of fact is perverse & based on no evidence, it can be set aside in appeal even though appeal is permissible only on substantial question of law. Perversity of finding itself becomes substantial question of law.-0…
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
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
DVO's report rightly corroborate statement made by assessee before I.T. Dept, HC
Dec. 24, 2015
AO was not satisfied, as purchase amt. did'nt reflect real value of investm't of assessee in property. AO referred it to DVO. On ground of income concealment AO levied penalty. CIT(A) & ITAT upheld it. On appeal HC held, Tribunal erred in holding that DVO's report did'nt corroborate statement made by assessee before income-tax authorities. ITAT right in accepting consideration as reflected in rgd. sale deed did not suffer from any legal infirmi…
Ref. denied as inappropriate for SC to enter adjudication of appeals on merits.
Nov. 02, 2015
Ref. application u/s 66(1) of I.T. Act was rejected by ITAT & Tribunal. On Appeal SC held, contrary to all notions of comity of courts & even though this was court which could in certain events set aside & overrule decisions of HC concerned, it could not by-pass normal procedure which was to be adopted for this purpose & achieve result indirectly in manner suggested by assessee. Thus, inappropriate for Court to enter upon adjudication on merits.-01…