Supreme Court: Companies Can Face Prosecution Without Individual Officers Being Named  ||  SC: Penalties on Insolvent Developers cannot be Recovered from Homebuyers as CIRP Costs  ||  Allahabad HC: ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ Hits Sovereignty, Unlike ‘Allahu-Akbar’, ‘Jai Shri Ram’  ||  Kerala High Court: Married Woman Cannot Claim Sex Was Based Solely on Promise of Marriage  ||  Madras High Court Refuses Equal Recitation of Tamil Hymns With Sanskrit at Meenakshi Temple  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of ‘Penetration’ In Child Victim’s Testimony Not Enough to Acquit Rape Accused  ||  J&K High Court: Possession of Allegedly Anti-National Book Cannot Justify Preventive Detention  ||  Delhi High Court: DNA Evidence Proves Sexual Intercourse, Not Consent  ||  Madras High Court Upholds Appointment of District Judges as Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Secretary  ||  Allahabad High Court: IO’s Mere Apprehension Cannot Justify Withholding Seized Items    

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