The Bombay High Court last week ruled that expenses incurred by a professional going abroad for treatment of eye is not eligible for income tax deduction. The assessee in this case, Dhimant Thakar vs CIT, was a lawyer and he argued that good vision was important for pursuing his profession. His claim for the assessment year 1986-87 was rejected by the revenue authorities.
His appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who observed that if the logic of the lawyer was stretched, it would mean that even expenditure incurred on food to preserve oneself should be treated as allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as being incurred for business or profession.
On appeal, the high court upheld the view of the authorities observing that "eyes are essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the professional is not in the nature of expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the profession… Effective eye sight is a necessity for living a life of a complete human. Therefore, in this case the expenditure is personal and incidental benefit if any is to the profession carried out by him."
Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/court-can-substitute-arbitrator-115110100751_1.html
His appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who observed that if the logic of the lawyer was stretched, it would mean that even expenditure incurred on food to preserve oneself should be treated as allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as being incurred for business or profession.
On appeal, the high court upheld the view of the authorities observing that "eyes are essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the professional is not in the nature of expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the profession… Effective eye sight is a necessity for living a life of a complete human. Therefore, in this case the expenditure is personal and incidental benefit if any is to the profession carried out by him."
Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/court-can-substitute-arbitrator-115110100751_1.html
Comments
Post a Comment