Tribunal partially allows appeal on Income-tax Act disallowance, upholds parking expenses, rejects interest and salary challenges.

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant concerning the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but upheld the disallowance of parking expenses incurred at the Madras branch. The challenges against the disallowance of proportionate interest amount and partial disallowance of salary expenses were rejected due to lack of substantial arguments. As a result, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of parking expenses incurred at Madras branch.
3. Disallowance of proportionate interest amount.
4. Partial disallowance of salary expenses of Namakkal branch debited in Baroda branch.

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appellant appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 5,04,340 under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning payments made in cash. The appellant contended that section 40A(3) applies to each payment below Rs. 20,000, citing a relevant decision. The Departmental representative argued that the appellant tried to avoid the section's applicability by splitting payments. The tribunal referred to the statutory provision and a previous court decision, emphasizing that the limit applies to each payment, not the aggregate of payments in a day. The tribunal found the self-made vouchers signed by the drivers as sufficient evidence of payments below Rs. 20,000, deleting the disallowance under section 40A(3).

Issue 2: Disallowance of parking expenses incurred at Madras branch:
The appellant contested the disallowance of parking expenses amounting to Rs. 94,845 at the Madras branch. The appellant argued that the expenses were essential for business purposes. However, the Departmental representative highlighted that the trucks were not owned by the appellant, questioning the justification for such payments only at the Chennai branch. The tribunal noted that the expenses were based on a notional basis and not actual expenditures, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the disallowance of parking expenses.

Issue 3: Disallowance of proportionate interest amount and Issue 4: Partial disallowance of salary expenses of Namakkal branch debited in Baroda branch:
During the hearing, no substantial arguments were presented to challenge the disallowances of proportionate interest amounting to Rs. 34,310 and partial disallowance of Rs. 43,950 on account of salary expenses. As a result, the tribunal treated these grounds as not pressed by the appellant and rejected them. Ultimately, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the appellant.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the disallowance under section 40A(3) but upheld the disallowance of parking expenses. The tribunal rejected the challenges against the disallowance of proportionate interest amount and partial disallowance of salary expenses, as no substantial arguments were presented against them during the hearing.

---