Supreme Court tells Parsvnath Developers to Comply with Haryana RERA Orders or Face Jail  ||  Supreme Court: Article 142 Cannot Override a Concluded and Acted-Upon Settlement Between Parties  ||  SC Grants One-Time Relief, Allows Law Students to Take Exams Despite Attendance Shortage  ||  SC Grants One-Time Relief, Allows Law Students to Take Exams Despite Attendance Shortage  ||  Supreme Court: Murder Inside a Vehicle Does Not Qualify For Motor Accident Compensation  ||  Supreme Court: Section 50 NDPS Act Inapplicable to Recovery from Articles Carried by Accused  ||  J&K&L High Court: Death of Sole Accused Brings Disproportionate Assets Attachment Case to an End  ||  Calcutta High Court: Child Marriage Allegation Alone Cannot Justify Ordering a POCSO FIR  ||  Calcutta High Court: Trial Courts Can't Compel Mediation in Mutual Consent Divorce Cases  ||  Kerala High Court Orders DGP to Set Up Special Squads Across Districts for Hit-and-Run Cases    

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