Tribunal decision on various expenses in tax appeal

The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on disallowance of telephone expenses, vehicle running & maintenance, consumable stores, general expenses, and repairs & maintenance (building), rejecting the Revenue's appeals on these issues. The tribunal upheld the disallowance of traveling & conveyance (director) expenses due to lack of evidence. The disallowance of gratuity was rejected as not pressed. The tribunal restored the AO's disallowance on freight & cartage (outward) and generator expenses, dismissing the assessee's appeals on these grounds. Both parties' appeals were partly allowed, with the assessee's cross objection dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Gratuity
2. Disallowance of Telephone Expenses
3. Disallowance of Freight & Cartage (Outward)
4. Disallowance of Vehicle Running & Maintenance
5. Disallowance of Consumable Stores
6. Disallowance of Travelling & Conveyance (Director)
7. Disallowance of General Expenses
8. Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance (Building)
9. Disallowance of Generator Expenses

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Gratuity:
The assessee's appeal on this ground was not pressed, and hence, it was rejected.

2. Disallowance of Telephone Expenses:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 61,950.15, while the Revenue challenged the restriction of disallowance to 7.5% of total expenses. The tribunal found that no disallowance is justified for personal use by directors/employees, as such expenses should be included in their perquisites. The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

3. Disallowance of Freight & Cartage (Outward):
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 2,94,108.15, while the Revenue challenged the restriction of disallowance to 5% of total expenses. The tribunal noted the abnormal increase in expenses and the significant cash payments. It reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's disallowance of 30%, rejecting the assessee's appeal and allowing the Revenue's appeal.

4. Disallowance of Vehicle Running & Maintenance:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,93,633.60, while the Revenue challenged the restriction of disallowance to 10% of total expenses. The tribunal found that no disallowance is justified for personal use by directors/employees, as such expenses should be included in their perquisites. The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

5. Disallowance of Consumable Stores:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,10,34,245.60, while the Revenue challenged the restriction of disallowance to 5% of total expenses. The tribunal noted that the expenses had decreased compared to the previous year despite a 5% increase in turnover. It found no disallowance justified and allowed the assessee's appeal while rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

6. Disallowance of Travelling & Conveyance (Director):
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 65,651. The tribunal upheld the disallowance as the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence, rejecting the assessee's appeal.

7. Disallowance of General Expenses:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 19,433.50, while the Revenue challenged the restriction of disallowance to 5% of total expenses. The tribunal found that the expenses were normal small day-to-day expenses incurred in cash and no disallowance was justified. It allowed the assessee's appeal and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

8. Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance (Building):
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 85,166.50, while the Revenue challenged the restriction of disallowance to 5% of total expenses. The tribunal found that the high expenses in one year do not justify disallowance without other reasons. It allowed the assessee's appeal and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

9. Disallowance of Generator Expenses:
The Revenue contested the restriction of disallowance to 5% of total expenses. The tribunal found no abnormal increase in expenses and noted that personal use should be included in perquisites, not disallowed in the company's hands. It upheld the CIT(A)'s order and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue were partly allowed. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed.

---