Expenses on eye treatment abroad not allowable u/s 37 being not exclusively incurred for profession

Brief of the Case

Bombay High Court held In the case of Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs. CIT that 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 u/s Section 37.

Facts of the Case

The assessee is a Solicitor by profession.During the assessment year 1986­87, the applicant incurredan expenditure of Rs.43,600/­ on a foreign tour in connection with a pre­operation investigation of his eyes while determining his total income. This claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 31st March,1987 passed under section 143 (3) on the ground it was personal expenditure. Therefore, it did not arise in the course of the profession nor was it incidental to the Profession.

Contention of the Assessee

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.