J&K&L HC: Bail is Not Absolute For Juveniles in Heinous Cases and Can be Denied to Serve Justice  ||  Delhi HC: Expired Driving Licenses Do Not Enjoy Deemed Continuity After 2019 MV Act Amendment  ||  MP High Court: Ex-Gratia Payments are Dependents’ Last Hope and Rules Should be Applied Liberally  ||  Orissa HC: SC’s Mihir Rajesh Shah Directive on Written Arrest Grounds Applies Prospectively  ||  Delhi HC: Tenant Liable For Possession Through Family; Non-Residence Claim Doesn’t Excuse Liability  ||  Allahabad High Court: Muslims Can Use Guardians and Wards Act Provisions to Seek Minor’s Custody  ||  Delhi High Court: Earlier Buyer Can Seek Cancellation of a Later Sale; Prior Rights Prevail  ||  Madras HC: 'Geetham' Restaurants Did Not Infringe 'Sangeetha' Trademark But Liable For Passing Off  ||  Bombay High Court: Disabled Employee Shifted Cadre Can’t Claim Past Service Seniority  ||  Supreme Court: Person Accepting a Section 28A Award May Seek Enhancement Via Appeals    

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