In this case, the assessee, a lawyer, claimed that his professional work had led to a heart attack and that the expenditure incurred by him on a heart operation was deductible u/s 31 on the ground that the heart was “plant” and the expenditure was incurred on “current repairs”. It was also claimed that as his professional receipts increased substantially after the operation, the expenditure was “wholly & exclusively” for profession and deductible u/s 37(1). The AO, CIT(A) & Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim. On appeal to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal Refer Shanti Bhushan vs. CIT Delhi ITAT.
CAclubindia
