TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pient while computing its total income and filed the return of income, then in view of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) which has been held as applicable retrospectively by the various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts including the decision of CIT vs. Naresh Kumar (2013 (9) TMI 275 - DELHI HIGH COURT) no disallowance is called for. Hence without going into the other contention raised by the ld. A/R, we find that if the said amount of rent has been considered by the RSWC in its total income while filing the return, then no disallowance shall be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly we direct the AO to verify this fact and then decide the issue in the light of the above observations and binding precedents. - ITA No. 793 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the AO has initially allowed the claim of expenditure on account of rent paid to the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation while passing the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). Hence, subsequently coming to a different opinion on the basis of audit objection is a change of opinion which is not covered in the ambit of error apparent on record under section 154 of the Act. Thus the assessee contended that the order passed under section 154 is bad in law and unjustified. Further it was contended that the AO passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity to the assessee being heard and, therefore, such order against the provisions of section 154(3) as well as in violation of principles of natural justice is not sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at source in respect of the payment of the rent in question then the said claim is hit by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and allowing the said claim while passing the assessment under section 143(3) is a mistake apparent on record which was rectified by the AO while passing the impugned order under section 154 of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The AO has disallowed the claim of expenditure of rent of ₹ 1,65,846/- paid to Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Since the rent was paid to the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, therefore we find merit in the contention of the ld. A/R that said amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
