Here is Portfolio page of Shrayan, with all his work

ITAT upheld disallowance of Rs 2 lakhs to plug possible leakages
Dec. 01, 2016
Dr Vikaramsinha Kakasaheb paid a salary of Rs 19.5 lakhs to his doctor wife, who worked at his nursing home. A.O. observed that assessee had made higher payments to his wife as compared to other doctors. A.O. considered Rs 6 lakhs as reasonable salary and balance of Rs 13.5 lakhs as unreasonable u/s 40A(2)(b). CIT(A) sustained a disallowance of Rs 2 lakhs to plug possible leakages. ITAT upheld CIT(A)s order. - 500439
Repair Exp. on office/Lab. damaged by natural calamity treated as revenue Exp.
Nov. 02, 2015
Assessee-company kolkata office was damaged by fire & its goa laboratory by flood/cyclone. It incurred certain expenditure in respect of its office & laboratory. It claimed said expenditure u/s 30.AO disallowed it holding that same was to be treated as an expenditure of a capital nature.On appeal, CIT (A) Held, that entire expenditure was of revenue nature & therefore, deductible.On appeal, ITAT & HC upheld the order of CIT (A).-000259
What is the process involved in launching a start-up in India?

Register the company=>Go for private limited company=>Pick a good bank
Tribunals award of compesation set aside by High Court
Aug. 16, 2016
The deceased was traveling unauthorizedly in a goods vehicle, and the accident took place prior to amendment of s 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Tribunal passed an award against the appellant Insurance Company. On appeal the High Court set aside the Tribunals award of paying to the original claimants and then recovering the same from the owner.-500114
Reject'n of Addit'nl ground raised by assessee before Tribunal held incorrect.
Nov. 26, 2015
Assessee challenged Tribunal's order of refusal to admit additi'nl ground raised as it did not arise out of order of First Appellate Authority. HC held, Commissioner may or may not have rendered any view on it as First Appellate Authority, does not mean that Tribunal was precluded in law from considering same after it was specifically raised by assessee before it. Thus, question of law answered in favor of the assessee & against the revenue. -000119
As exp. nt resulted in capital asset, so to be recorded as exp. in capital field
Dec. 11, 2015
Assessee incurred certain exp. on brand building which was claimed as deduct'n u/s 37(1). AO held, exp. resulted in enduring benefit. Thus, he disallowed claim by treating it as capital exp.. However, CIT(A) allowed exp. in entirety holding it as routine operational exp..On appeal, ITAT held, As exp. has not resulted in capital asset, so has to be recorded as exp. in capital field. It can't be attributed to capital exp. on brand building.
If assessee Res./ NR u/s 4A to be considered, when assessable inc. determined
Nov. 14, 2015
Assessee-Co had head office in London & branches in Ind.. EPTO treated assessee as NR in assesmnt. yr. as its foreign profits more than Indian profits & determined standard profits. AAC confirmed order of EPTO. On appeal Tribinal held, question, whether assessee was resident or NR u/s 4A to be considered at stage when assessable income was being determined. HC & SC upheld it: EPTO to have added both Indian profits & London profits for both years.
Arbitration award upheld as it was not perverse or opposed to public policy
Aug. 16, 2016
There was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent for making available imported prime coking coal to the respondent. A dispute arose and a settlement was arrived at between the parties. The arbitrator awarded principal amount claimed in respect of the 29 wagons and did not permit any interest for the pre-reference period. High Court held dismissed the appeal as the award was not perverse or otherwise opposed to public policy.-500121
Revision petition allowed as no material against the petitioner accused
Aug. 12, 2016
Petitioner, a chit fund company, induced the respondent to invest with the petitioner. Despite requests for release of matured chit amount, it was not released and respondent filed a complaint u/s 200 & 156 (3) Cr. P. C. before the Ld. Magistrate, and an FIR was registered. Petitioner filed a revision before the Special Judge who held that there was no material to proceed against petitioner and allowed the revision petition. -500080
Assessee given opportunity to furnish evidences to justify exp. incurred.
Nov. 02, 2015
AO disallowed expenditure claimed by assessee on ground of non explaination of business expediency of incurring such expenses at abnormal rate. On appeal CIT(A) allowed it. On appeal, ITAT reduced amount. On appeal HC directed AO to permit assessee to adduce such evidence as assessee wants to rely upon to show that sum of Rs.11 crores was incurred by assessee for appropriate reasons & thereafter consider matter in accordance with law. -000271