SC: POCSO Guilt Presumption Not Absolute, Acquits Accused  ||  Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules  ||  Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules  ||  SC: Unexplained 5-Day Sample Custody Gap Breached S.52A, Acquits 2 after 20 Years  ||  P&H High Court: Illegal Search Alone Does Not Justify Quashing of Complaint under PNDT Act  ||  Bom HC: Creating WhatsApp Group Without Employer's Permission Not Ground for Compulsory Retirement  ||  Madras HC: Lack of Son’s Moral Support Alone Cannot Sustain Father’s Maintenance Claim under CrPC  ||  Kerala HC: University Professor doesn't Occupy 'Public Office', Quo Warranto Not Maintainable  ||  Bombay HC Allows Cutting of 1,237 Mangroves for Connector Bridge in Mumbai’s Western Suburbs  ||  Calcutta HC Orders Return of 3-Year-Old to Adoptive Couple, he wasn't Abandoned    

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