SC: Subsidy Taxability Depends on its Purpose under The Income Tax Law  ||  MP HC:Revenue Authority’s Decision Can’t Operate as Res Judicata in Absence of Express Statutory Bar  ||  SC: Breakup Followed by Suicide does not Automatically Amount to Abetment to Suicide  ||  SC: Election Petition under Representation of the People Act Must be Filed Personally by Petitioner  ||  Patna HC: Template Arrest Memo cannot Satisfy Mandate under Article 22 of Constitution  ||  MP HC: Delayed Cruelty FIR not Counterblast When Wife “Remains Silent” to Save her Married Life  ||  MP HC:Revenue Authority’s Decision Can’t Operate as Res Judicata in Absence of Express Statutory Bar  ||  Patna HC: Signature Mismatch alone cannot Prove OMR Tampering  ||  J&K&L HC: Bail can be Set Aside if Contrary to Statutory Mandate  ||  Kerala HC: Headmistress’s Churidar cannot Bar Entry, Clothing Choice is A Fundamental Right    

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