Here is Portfolio page of Shrayan, with all his work

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
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
Jurisdiction transfer was set aside by HC being in violation of Sec. 127(2).
Nov. 02, 2015
Assessee filed writ petition contending that jurisdiction in its case was transferred from one place to another without service of show-cause notice, same being violation of Sec.127(2). HC held that impugned order revealed that it does not refer to any contention raised on behalf of the assessee, thereby clearly proving that assessee was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Thus, impugned order was contrary to Sec.127 & same was set aside. -0...
Reassessment u/s 148 by AO disallowed as income escaped assessment not proved.
Nov. 04, 2015
Assessee-firm exported diamonds. Assessment reopened u/s148 on ground that assessee had undervalued closing stock of diamonds & diverted funds, income escaped assessment. On appeal HC held, not necessary to examine assessee's contention that even otherwise assessee had sufficient interest bearing funds & therefore, it can't be said that assessee diverted its interest bearing funds to non-interest earning advances. HC disallowed reassessment.-010591
High Court allowed writ directing reconsideration of petitioner's termination
Aug. 14, 2016
Respondent cancelled petitioner's tender for supply of food grains in Gurgaon and Pataudi, on complaints that food grains had not been supplied in Gurgaon, and forfeited security amount for 2015-16 and blacklisted petitioner for future contracts. Petitioner filed a writ petition, and the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the DM to take fresh decision on petitioners termination. -500084
Dis-entitlement to depreciation under notification is no infringement of Art.14
Nov. 02, 2015
Assessee purchased car & found that he was not entitled to accelerated depreciation U/E P10 notification. He filed writ in HC. It was held that measures introduced in Income-tax Rules can'nt be seen as akin to introduction of a new rate of tax, for purposes of mounting a challenge against same as arbitrary. Thus, challenge against exhibit P10 notification on ground that same infringes right under article 14 of Constitution was not made out. -000262
Illiterate tax payers should be dealt more sympathetically by Income Tax Dept.SC
Nov. 09, 2015
Assessee in return showed income. Agri. ITO under circumstances assessee directed to submit fresh return & to produce account books & filure would lead to assessment u/s 25(5) of Act. On non appearance ITO assessed income. On appeal SC held, Ignorant & illiterate people who are not, well versed with law of income-tax should be dealt with more sympathetically than was done here. They should not be penalised in manner that assesses was penalised.-0...
what is the procedure to appoint additional director in a company ?

It required lot of legal document. for that contact me.
Is TDS taxable?

TDS in itself is a tax which is collected as a means to keep a stable revenue source for the government throughout the year, while desisting people from avoiding taxes.
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