Manipur HC: State Establishments Must Record Transgender Person’s New Name & Gender in Documents  ||  Delhi HC: Failure to Frame Counter Claim Despite Pleadings is Patently Illegal  ||  Mumbai Commission Holds Reliance Retail Liable for Defective AC Replacement Failure  ||  SC Orders ASI to Supervise Repair of Mehrauli’s Ancient Dargahs  ||  SC Reprimands Bihar IPS Officer for Affidavit Supporting Murder Convict  ||  SC Rejects Review Plea on WB SSC Jobs, Upholds Quashing of 25k Appointments  ||  SC Rejects Review Plea on WB SSC Jobs, Upholds Quashing of 25k Appointments  ||  Supreme Court Orders Haridwar Collector Inquiry into Maa Chandi Devi Trust  ||  SC Recommends Statutory Appeal Against DJ’s Compensation Orders  ||  SC Dismisses Petition Challenging 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections Over Bogus Voting    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved