Here is Portfolio page of VN, with all his work

Challenge to Consti. validity of Sec.116 & 117 of Finance Act,2000. failed, SC
Apr. 08, 2016
Writ petitions filed before SC, challenging constitutional validity of Sec.116 & 117 of Finance Act 2000 & Sec. 158 of Finance Act, 2003. SC held, It is outside judicial ken to determine whether Parliament should have specified a common mode for recovery of tax as a convenient administrative measure in respect of a particular class. That is ultimately a question of policy which must be left to legislative wisdom. Thus, challenge failed.
Balance of convenience held in favor of Revenue in service tax matter.
Apr. 08, 2016
M/s Shoppers Stop Ltd. did not discharge any service tax on consideration of Rs. 27,86,81,505/- received during 1.5.06 to 31.05.07. Dept. viewed, service rendered by M/s SSL falls within category of Business Support Services. Thus, revenue demanded service tax & imposed penalty. Tribunal held, as there is no prima facie case in favour of appellant & there is no financial hardship pleaded. Thus, balance of convenience lies in favour of Rev...
Deduction claim of assessee regarding interest payable u/s 43B I.T.Act allowed.
Nov. 23, 2015
Assessee mfd. Petro Chem. product. Deduct'n claim of assessee u/s 43B in connection with discharge of funded interest amt. payable to IDBI amounting to Rs.14 Cr. by way of conversion into equity shares of assessee Co. AO disallowed it u/s 43B. CIT(A) confirmed disallowance. On appeal HC held, CIT(A) has misunderstood computat'n of total income in assessm't order. Thus, claim of assessee regarding interest payable of Rs.14 crore u/s 43B allowed.
As loan given was nt payment to shareholder, Sec. 2(22) held inapplicable, HC
Nov. 20, 2015
Assessee held 50% shares in L. 'L' advanced money to 'N' Co. who in turn advanced money to assessee. AO taxed amount of loan received by assessee from 'N' as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). On appeal, CIT (A) held that loan given by 'N' to assessee was not payment made by it to its shareholder. Thus, Sec. 2(22)(e) can't be applied. ITAT & HC upheld it in view of HC decision in CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd., as assessee nt shareholder of 'N'.

Hi there!

Would you like to receive a free callback in

Yes

×