SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’  ||  Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective  ||  Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO  ||  Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage  ||  Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law  ||  Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation  ||  CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order    

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