Here is Portfolio page of Rajeev, with all his work

As tenancy belonged to individual partners, asseessee can't be taxed on rent.
Nov. 03, 2015
Assessee ran business of rental premises. AO after survey found an agreement indicating surrender of tenancy by assessee-firm in favour of builder. AO taxed rent. On appeal CIT(A) & ITAT deleted tax on ground that tenancy of rental premises belonged to individual partners & not to assessee. Also, it was tripartite agreement & rent was normal allowable business expenditure of Assessee's firm. On appeal HC upheld both CIT(A) & ITAT findings.-000286
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…
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.
Dispute regarding account being correctly classified as NPA or not is factual.
Nov. 05, 2015
Bank u/s 13(3A) dismissed representation against notice u/s 13(2). On first appeal HC held, Classification by Bank of loan account as NPA was not faulty. On 2nd appeal HC held, process u/s 13(3A) is not adjudicatory. Question whether borrower has committed any default in repayment & whether account has been correctly classified as NPA or not is factual dispute which even otherwise ordinarily in writ jurisdiction is not to be entertained. Appeal…
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…
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…
Interest received as part of sale consideration held "capital gain" by HC.
Nov. 02, 2015
Assessee company was under liquidation. Mill belonging to assessee-company sold in public auction. AO assessed amount of interest as income under head 'Income from other sources'. Liquidator under capital gains. On writ HC held, interest received was part of sale consideration & therefore, same could not be treated as income from other sources under Sec. 56. Said amount should be treated only as capital gain u/s 45 for purpose of assessment.-010554
Burden to prove concealment/undervaluation of income is on revenue, held HC.
Nov. 03, 2015
Assessees purchased properties. AO made additions on basis of valuation by DVO. On appeal ITAT held, AO could not tax amounts merely based upon DVO's report in absence of any material pointing to under valuation. On appeal HC upheld ITAT decision relying upon CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal[2011] 335 ITR 572/200: Only when burden to prove concealment of income is discharged by revenue, it would be permissible to rely upon valuation given by DVO.-000291