Supreme Court: Marking a Document as an Exhibit Does Not Prove its Contents  ||  Supreme Court: Unpaid Consideration Alone Does Not Invalidate a Sale Deed  ||  Bombay HC: Questioning Other Varsities' Degrees Could Cause 'Anarchy and Chaos' in Education System  ||  Allahabad High Court: Regularization Claim Survives Employee’s Death Through Legal Heirs  ||  Allahabad HC: Advocates Failing AIBE Within 2 Years of Provisional Enrolment Can’t Continue Practice  ||  Bombay High Court Directs BCI to Scrutinise and Clear Pending Law College Affiliation Approvals  ||  J&K HC: Circulating WhatsApp Message on Local COVID Cases Does Not Attract Section 505 IPC  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract  ||  Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability  ||  SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training    

Dhimant Hiralal Thakar v. The Commissioner of Income Tax B.C. II - (High Court of Bombay) (28 Oct 2015)

Expenditure on solicitor’s eye operation not business expense

MANU/MH/2921/2015

Direct Taxation

The Bombay High Court upheld an order of the ITAT excluding expenditure by the Assessee on eye treatments to improve vision. The Tribunal had determined eyes to be “an important organ for…effective living of every human being”; as such expenditure on the same was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of a profession, it fell within the remit of ‘personal expense’. The Court opined, though expenditure incurred for purposes of business could provide incidental third-party benefit, expenditure to improve vision rendered benefits to professional activity incidental.

Relevant : CIT, Delhi vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co.Ltd. MANU/SC/0136/1982 Section 31 Income Tax Act, 1961 Act

Tags : PERSONAL EXPENSE   BUSINESS   TAX   DEDUCTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved