SC: Bribe Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt without Proof of Demand under PC Act  ||  SC: Cut Power, Water to Bulk Waste Generators Violating Solid Waste Rules  ||  SC: RPF Employee Who Conceals Criminal Case Can be Discharged at Any Stage  ||  SC: Police can Register FIR Despite Magistrate Rejecting S.156(3) CrPC Application  ||  SC: Criminal Acquittal Alone Cannot Prove Absence of Negligence in Accident Claims  ||  SC: Referral Fees Earned By Auto Dealers for Bank, Insurance Promotion Taxable as Service Tax  ||  Supreme Court Revisits the definition of “Industry”: 9-Judge Bench Reformulates the 1978 Triple Test  ||  Delhi HC: Exam Integrity is a Shared Duty of Candidates and Authorities  ||  Delhi High Court: POCSO Allows Child Witness Cross-Examination but Bars Aggressive Questioning  ||  Kerala HC: Christian Women May File Divorce Pleas Where They Reside    

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