Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs CIT (Bombay High Court)- Requirement to claim a deduction under Section 37 which is a residuary provision is that the expenditure must not be of the nature described in section 30 to 36; secondly the expenditure must not be capital in nature; thirdly the expenditure must have been laid down wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business/profession of the assessee; and fourthly the expenditure must not be personal in nature.
Applying these requirements of the statutory provision and the settled position in law as noted by us in the above decisions, we have no hesitation to reach a conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to claim deduction in respect of the expenditure incurred by him on foreign tour undertaken by him in the assessment year in question for the purpose of pre-operative treatment of his eyes. It cannot be disputed that the expenditure of Rs.43,600/- on foreign tour claimed to be undertaken by the appellant is for the purpose of pre-operation investigation of his eyes.
We are not persuaded to accept the submission on behalf of the applicant that eyes are required to be exclusively used for the purpose of profession by the applicant. As observed above eyes are an important organ of the human body and is essential for the efficient survival of a human being. Eyes are thus 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 applicant is not in the nature of the expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the profession of the applicant and thus this expenditure cannot be claimed by the applicant to be allowed as deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains from business or profession in case of the applicant as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 487 OF 1997
Dhimant Hiralal Thakar
vs
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Mr.Nitesh Joshi with Mr.Bharat Damodar C/o Kanga & Co., Advocates for Applicant.
Mr.Suresh Kumar Advocate for Respondent
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA AND G.S.KULKARNI, JJ
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:21st SEPTEMBER, 2015
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 28th OCTOBER, 2015
JUDGMENT(Per G.S.Kulkarni, J):-
1. By this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act),the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has referred the following question of law for answer the opinion of this Court :
