Here is Portfolio page of VN, with all his work

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.
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.
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'.
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...