SC: Statutory Authorities may Intervene When Housing Societies Delay Membership Decisions  ||  SC: Quasi-Judicial Authorities Cannot Exercise Review Powers Unless Expressly Granted By Statute  ||  SC: Special Court Cannot Order Confiscation While Appeal Against Attachment Confirmation is Pending  ||  SC: Photocopies are Not Evidence Unless Conditions for Leading Secondary Evidence are Proved  ||  Calcutta HC: Conviction under Essential Commodities Act Invalid if Stock Measured With a 'Stick'  ||  Kerala High Court: Universities Must Regulate Student Political Activities to Curb Campus Violence  ||  Calcutta HC: Accused Has No Right on Investigation Mode or Impleadment in Probe Writ  ||  Gauhati HC: POCSO Probes Must be Child-Friendly, With Sensitized Investigators to Ensure Clear Truth  ||  Kerala HC: Orders Barring Disclosure of Witness Statements Must State Reasons For Each Witness  ||  SC: Hard to Believe Married Woman Was Lured Into Sex by False Marriage Promise; Case Quashed    

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