| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2772 2011 SLD 2772 (2011) 336 ITR 26 |
Delhi High Court
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ.
Shanti Bhushanv.Commissioner of Income Tax
Law:
Section:
Section 31 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Repairs and insurance of machinery, plant and furniture - Assessment year 1983-84 - Assessee, a lawyer, incurred certain expenditure on his heart surgery - He claimed deduction of said amount under section 31 - Authorities below rejected assessee's claim - Whether general well being of heart and its functionality cannot be equated with using heart as a tool for engaging in trade or professional activity - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, assessee's claim for allowing deduction of expenses incurred by him on his coronary surgery under section 31 was to be rejected - Held, yes Section 31 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Repairs and insurance of machinery, plant and furniture - Assessment year 1983-84 - Whether before expenses on repair of plant are admitted as a deduction, plant would necessarily have to be reflected as an asset in books of account - Held, yes Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1983-84 - Whether in view of fact stated under head 'Repairs and insurance of machinery, plant and furniture' expenditure incurred by assessee on his heart surgery was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of his profession being a lawyer - Held, no FACTS The assessee, a lawyer, incurred certain expenditure on his heart surgery. He claimed deduction of said expenditure under section 31. The assessee's stand was that the expenditure incurred by him on coronary surgery conducted on him, was akin to expenses incurred on current repairs of a plant. The assessee's stand, thus, was that a human heart was in the nature of a plant. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that the expenditure in issue, was in the nature of a personal expense and, hence, not allowable as deduction either under section 31, or even, under section 37. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal : HELD The deduction under section 31 would not be available for two reasons: firstly, if the heart of a human being, as in the case of the assessee, were to be considered a plant, it would necessarily mean that it is an…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492