Allahabad HC Reduces Cop's Sentence in 1984 Attempt-to-Murder Case, Awards Rs. 35,000 to Victim  ||  Delhi High Court: Copyright Owners and ISPs Cannot Unilaterally Declare a Website 'Rogue'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Teacher's Reprimand for Poor Attendance and Performance is Not Abetment of Suicide  ||  Karnataka High Court: Police Assistance to Enforce Injunction Not Barred by Res Judicata  ||  SC Upholds Validity of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, Says ITC Depends on Supplier's Tax Payment  ||  Supreme Court: Registration Certificate Alone Can't Secure Interim Release of Seized Vehicles  ||  Supreme Court: IBC Moratorium Doesn't Shield Promoters, Directors From Consumer Complaints  ||  Supreme Court: Accused Person's Advocate Cannot Remain Present During Entire Police Interrogation  ||  Uttarakhand HC: Severity of POCSO Charges Alone Cannot Deny Juvenile Bail  ||  Madras HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused of Watching CM Vijay's Unreleased Film Online    

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