Kerala HC: Persons With Down Syndrome Get Protection and Guardianship under National Trust Act, 1999  ||  J&K&L HC: Contractual Staff Cannot Claim Payment Beyond Contract Period Without Proving Work  ||  J&K&L HC: Revisional Powers U/S 15 Must be Exercised in Reasonable Time, Not After 20-Year Delay  ||  MP High Court: Revoking Building Permission Without Fraud Proof Violates Right to Property  ||  Madras HC: Centre’s Consent For Remission is Needed only When Sentence under Central Act is Ongoing  ||  Delhi HC: Private School Employees Entitled to Child Care Leave Equivalent to Government Employees  ||  Supreme Court Has Released Draft Regulations on AI Use in the Judiciary and Invited Public Feedback  ||  Supreme Court: MMDR Act Royalty Hikes Prevail over Contractual Terms  ||  Delhi HC: Daughter-In-Law Has No Independent Right in Mother-In-Law’s Self-Acquired House  ||  SC: Prolonged Separation Can Constitute Cruelty and Desertion    

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