Here is Portfolio page of Shrayan, with all his work

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
What is the difference between TDS and income tax?
Feb. 06, 2017
Whole profits of a/c yr must be taken to have accrued at place of business. SC
Nov. 14, 2015
Assessee business in silver having a/c books on mercantile basis. On some silver bars sold for domestic use of partners, AO alleged it not genuine, as formed part of stock-in-trade. Thus, included in taxable profits valued at market rate. On appeal, Tribunal & HC upheld it. On appeal SC held, whole profits of a/c year must be taken to have accrued where business was carried on, no part of it transacted at Bikaner where silver bars were sent.-010343
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.
what is the procedure to appoint additional director in a company ?

It required lot of legal document. for that contact me.
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
Plaintiff's application for enhancement of valuation of suit allowed
Aug. 12, 2016
Plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 & s 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint, for enhancement of the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, as the defendants has flooded the market with their product TRANSFLUTHRIN thereby infringing the plaintiff's patent. The Court allowed the plaintiffs application.
Company ordered to deposit principal amounts to stay liquidator's action
Aug. 16, 2016
In a company petition was admitted and the company was directed to be wound up. In another petition, company indicated its willingness to settle with the petitioner-creditor. Company did not pay. Court ordered Official Liquidator's to take control of the company's assets. High Court ordered the company to deposit principal amounts covered by the claims of two petitioning creditors for the Official Liquidator to be asked to stay his hands. -500141
On basis of subsequent info received by AO, proceedings u/s 147 held justified.
Nov. 20, 2015
Tribunal quashed proceeding u/s 147 due to non-mentioning of reason that there was failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts fully & truly necessary for assessment. On appeal HC held, immaterial, If ITO in original assessment found genuineness of transaction or not. If later info. satisfy that assessee had not made full & true disclosure of material facts during original assessment. Concluded, taxable income escaped assessm…
Claim to be considered trading loss decided with ref.to Apex Court decisions, HC
Nov. 04, 2015
Assessee manufactured & sold fire works. AO disallowed claim of disputed debts due from debtors & sum towards time barred debts. He made additions. CIT & ITAT rejected assesse's claim. On appeal HC set aside ITAT's order & directed it to consider assessee's claim of sum of Rs. 4,75,307/- as to whether said can be considered as trading loss in light of decisions of Apex Court: Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT.[1997] 225 ITR 802.-010597