How many judgments cite CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan?

308 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69A, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 147, Section 148, Section 68.

CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

237 ITR 570Supreme Court of India1999#251 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan authority for?

An unsatisfactory explanation for an amount credited in the books does not automatically result in it being deemed as the assessee's income under Section 68. The initial onus is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

308

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt P K Noorjahan · CIT v Smt P K Noorjahan · 237 ITR 570 · Section 68 · Section 69 · cash credit · unexplained money · burden of proof · onus of proof · unsatisfactory explanation · deemed income · identity creditworthiness genuineness

Also reported as

103 Taxmann 382150 Taxmann.com 301155 CTR 509

Sections most often in play

Section 69A Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 132 Section 69

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor section 132(4a)loose papers addition under section 68 unexplained money section 69 section 158 unexplained investment section 158b section 115bb section 131 section 115bbe

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

ACIT CC 22, Mumbai vs. Sony Mony Electronics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2005-2006

ITA 5555/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-2006 The Acit Cc 22, M/S Sony Mony Electronics Ltd., Room No. 403, 4Th Floor, 36, Shreeji Apartment 45 J.P. Rd, Aayakar Bhavan, Versova, Andheri, M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumbai- 400053 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacs9371H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Arju Garodia (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Jigna Parekh (AR)

Section 142Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…A) has rightly deleted the penalty levied by the AO. So far as addition of Rs. 42,85,578/- made on account of un explained cash credit is concerned, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are based on the Law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. P K Noorjahan 237 ITR 570. The Ld. CIT(A). As regards addition of Rs.17,40,076/-the Ld. Counsel submitted that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Reliance Petro products P Ltd., 322 ITR 158. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal of the revenue. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the en…

Shriprakash V. Sardesai, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cxir 47, Mumbai

ITA 484/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 484/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja

Section 143Section 271(1)Section 68

…respect of the investments of the assessee and the additions made for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 should be deleted." It is pertinent to note that the above ruling of the Honourable Kerala High Court has been upheld by Honourable Supreme Court in 237 ITR 570 (SC) 2.9.8 In the instant case also, as tabulated above, it could have taken years or even decade by the appellant to earn an in exorbitant income of Rs. 18.70 crores. Accordingly, the appellant humbly prays to delete the addition made by the AO. 2.9.9 As regards the cash deposit in the account of M/s Shrinath Trading Co., prior to the loan trans…

Sh. Giani Ram, Haryana vs. ACIT, Rewari

ITA 738/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, Sh. Giani Ram, Vill.- Deoki, Income Tax Officer, P.O.- Bikaner, Dist. - Rewari, Rewari Haryana Pan : Blqpr1171K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Naveen Gupta, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Rohtak, For Assessment Year 2007-08, Rising Following Grounds:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. ACIT, Sh. Giani Ram, Vill.- Deoki, Income Tax Officer, P.O.- Bikaner, Dist. - Rewari, Rewari Haryana PAN : BLQPR1171K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Naveen Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.DR Date of hearing 07.03.2017 Date of pronouncement 28.03.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak, for assessment year 2007-08,…

Asst CIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vinod Ramniwas Garg, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2899/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2249/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Vinod Garg, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O M/S Loya Bagri & Co., Income Tax – Central Cir V. Chartered Accountants, 18 & 19, Gandhibag, Mumbai. Nagpur – 440 002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abopg 6195 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69B

…g judicial decisions in support of his claim:- ITA No. 2249/Mum/2015 & 16 1. CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-5-1994 2. Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (2012) 69 DTR 82 (Del) 3. CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2011) 339 ITR 351(Guj.) 4. CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) It was also submitted that no documents were seized during the search operations by Revenue which incriminates assessee. It was submitted that the AO erred in invoking Section 69B of 1961 Act while making additions, while the applicable section is 69A of 1961 Act , if at all additions were to be made by the AO. It was submitted that since w…

Vinod Garg, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2249/MUM/2015[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69B

Smt Krishna Ojha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-26(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 658/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharya, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A No.658/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Krishna Ojha (PAN: AACPO9425B) Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-26(4), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 03.01.2017 Date of pronouncement: 13.01.2017 For the Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharya, JCIT ORDER Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10, is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Kolkata in appe…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Shri Baljeet, Jhajjar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4416/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Baljeet S/O Sh. Jage Ram, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Vpo Lowakhurd, Rohtak (Haryana) Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar Haryana (Pan: Bbdp84909G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…500/-, amount of Rs. 17,22,500/- were received against the sale of agricultural land over and above the stamp value of as considered and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT, Ernakulam vs. PK Noorjahan reported at 237 ITR 570. He further stated that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures, as has been held in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. vs. CIT reported 37 ITR 271 (SC). With regard to cash withdrawals assessee’s counsel stated that a sum of Rs. 55,000/- deposited on 2.12.2005 and Rs. 50,000/- on 8.3.2006 were out of c…

M/S. Mehta Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1633/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 68Section 69C

…iled to discuss and appreciate the contention of the appellant in this regard as also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. - (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC) and CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan - (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) relied upon by the appellant. 5 That on facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO without fully appreciating the facts and contention of the appellant and therefore the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year un…

ITO, Chennai vs. Shri K.V.Rmadoss, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1754/CHNY/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Duraipandian, IRS, JCIT

Section 133(6)

…e Assessing Officer source of their earnings for giving advance to the assessee. As per the assessee he had discharged the onus resting on him for proving the credit. Reliance was placed on Hon’le Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd 216 ITA No.1754/Mds/2012. :- 7 -: CTR 195, judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd 205 ITR 98 and judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Electro Polychem Ltd 294 ITR 661. 6. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was appreciative of the above…

Chains Corner Jewellery (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5703/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanjukta Chowdhury, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Maurya Pratap, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 271A

…hey had not accounted this cash accumulation, as it was in the middle of the year. Reliance was placed by her on the decision in the case of CIT vs. ASK Enterprises 230 ITR (Bom.); CIT vs. Shubhagamal Mahavirchand 142 ITR 747 (Mad); CIT vs. Smt. P.K.Noorjehan 237 ITR 570(SC); P.K.Jain vs. DCIT 149 TTJ (Ctk)(UO) 36; Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT 149 TTJ (Ctk)(UO) 33; ACIT vs. M/s. Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 6763/Mum/2011) for the A.Y. 2007-08 ; ACIT vs. Shri. A.M. Annamalaisamy (HUF) (ITA No. 1634/Mds/2012) for the A.Y. 2009-10; Sarat Chandra Sahoo vs. Dy. CIT (2015) 152 ITD 326(Ctk.); Sunil Kumar Bansal vs.…

Md Samsuddin, Malda vs. ITO, WD-3, Malda

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 473/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 251

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,‘D’ BENCH KOLKATA Before : Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 473/KOL/2015 A.Y: 2011-12 Md. Samsuddin Vs. I.T.O., Ward 3, Malda PAN: BKBPS2842A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, AR for the assessee Shri Debasis Banerjee,JCIT, Sr.DR for the revenue Date of hearing : 07-11-2016 Date of pronouncement : 25-11-2016 O R D E R Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27-02-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)…

Amit Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C C-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 337/KOL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ak credit method to arrive at the undisclosed income of the assessee in the undisclosed bank account No.SB 6664 with the Syndicate bank." Reference may also be drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofCIT vs Smt. P.K.Noorjehan reported in 237 ITR 570(SC) wherein their lordships have held that mere unsatisfactoriness of the explanation offered by the assessee, does not, and need not, automatically result in deeming the value of investment to be the income of the assessee. That is still a matter within the discretion of the officer ITA No.337/Kol/2014 A.Y.2011-12 Amit Agarwal vs. DCIT, CC-XXVI…

N. Palanivel, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1289/BANG/2015[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri H. N. Khincha, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Inder Solanki, JCIT

Section 68Section 69

…at since affidavit is filed and no enquiry was made by the AO by calling the maternal grandfather of the assessee, addition cannot be made. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court rendered in the case of CIT vs. P. K. Noorjahan as reported in 237 ITR 570. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. First of all, I take note of the directions of the tribunal in the first round. As per the same, the A.O. was directed by the tribunal to examine the claim of the assessee in detail after giving reasonable and adequate opportuni…

Jyoti S. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 20(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1981/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 148Section 68Section 69

…with Shri Bhavesh K Vora and hence there would be difficulty in proving these submissions, since it is natural that Shri Bhavesh Vora would not co-operate with the assessee. 3 Miss Jyoti S. Agarwal 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570) has explained the scope of provisions of section 69 and has stated that power vested with the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 & 69 is discretionary in nature and the Assessing Officer may also choose not to make any addition considering the peculiar facts available in a particular case. In my view decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abov…

A.C.I.T Cir - 3, Asansol vs. Sri Bireswar Kar, Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed while the C

ITA 1454/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…e declaration of the persons, their identities have been proved and the bank statement of the donors have also shown to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Basing upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. P.K Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 and relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd 159 ITR 78, CIT Vs. Doulatram Rawatmal-87 ITR 249 and several other cases, Gujrat High Court has decided in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders that in the absence of a unsatisfactory explanation, the unexplained cas…

Smt. Beena Gutgutia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2414/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68

…, 1961. As an alternate plea, the Ld. AR also submitted that the addition should have been made in the hands of the tax-payer and not an old lady like the assessee. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and on the decision by the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in Harish Kumar vs DCIT 85 ITD 366 (Hyd) for the proposition that additions u/s 68 were not tenable. 6. The Ld. DR, in response, defended the impugned order and submitted that the additions have been made on account of amounts credited to the capital account of the assesee and hence provisions of…

Sri. Jayan Paleri, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 150/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

…d the agricultural earnings of his mother were unjustly rejected by the lower authorities. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [264 ITR 254], that of the Apex Court in CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [237 ITR 570] and that of coordinate bench in Ms. Panduranga Bhargavi Vaidya v. DCIT [ITA No.1215/Bang/2015, dt.13.04.2016]. 06. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that AO had given credit for Rs.20 lakhs for earlier withdrawals from bank accounts. As per Ld. DR, except ITA.150/Bang/2015 Page - 5 for submissions, assessee could not produce any evidence in suppor…

Pandurang W. Salgaonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1267/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Shri Pandurang W. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Salgaonkar, C-203, Rajesh Ward - 25 (2) (2), Mumbai Nagar, Near J. B. Khot School, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 098 Pan: Aabps 8483 N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…k credit method to arrive at the undisclosed income of the assessee in the undisclosed bank account No.SB 6664 with the Syndicate bank." Reference may also be drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. P.K.Noorjehan reported in 237 ITR 570(SC) wherein their lordships have held that mere unsatisfactoriness of the explanation offered by the assessee, does not, and need not, automatically result in deeming the value of investment to be the income of the assessee. That is still a matter within the discretion of the officer and, therefore, of the Tribunal. In other words, the discretion…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar Ahuja, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6579/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Chadha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 68

…maining outstanding at the end of the year against such purchase cannot be treated as a bogus liability and addition made on that basis cannot be sustained as held in ‘JCIT vs. Mathura Dass Ashok Kumar’, 101 TTJ (All) 810. In ‘CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan’, 237 ITR 570 (SC), it has been held that as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it is not mandatory that in case the assessee fails to satisfy the Assessing Officer about the outstanding credits, the same are mandatorily required to be added as income of the assessee and that Section 68 of the Act gives a 4 discretion of the Assessing Officer in th…

Sh. Rajeev Rastogi, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result we reverse the order of CIT(A) and direct assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs

ITA 6787/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishirajeev Rastogi Acit, Prop. M/S R K Associates Circle-2, Vs. Samrat Palace Meerut Garh Road Meerut Pan: Aampr8281L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…g else to be substantiated by assessing officer. He, therefore, submitted that they addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is just and proper. He relied on the decision of Honourable Supreme court in case of CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570). 05. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and we are of the view that contention of the assessee that that for assessment year 2009–2010 assessee has disclosed Rs.40,00,000/- to cover up possible leakages in that year. Therefore benefit of capitalisation of that sum which was disclosed by the assessee for assessment year 2009–2010…