Is ''heart'' an asset ??? read this case law !

Others 3389 views 42 replies

Dear Members, 

See this interesting case law. 

Shanti Bhushan vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Professional’s heart surgery expense not deductible u/s 31 or 37(1)


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:


(i) The claim for deduction u/s 31 is not acceptable because (a) if the heart were to be considered a “plant”, it would necessarily mean that it is an asset which should have found a mention in the assessee’s balance sheet. This was not done and cannot be done as the “cost of acquisition” of such an asset cannot be determined and (b) Even if the widest meaning to the word “plant” is given the heart does not satisfy the “functionality” test because while the heart is necessary for survival, it does not mean it is used as a “tool” of trade or professional activity;

(ii) The claim u/s 37(1) is also not acceptable because the expenditure is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee’s profession. There is no direct or immediate nexus between the expenses incurred by the assessee on the coronary surgery and his efficiency in the professional field per se.

Replies (42)

Lawyers are always upto find new avenues in the interpretation of law...but cannot over smart bodies who laid the law.

Good one sunny..

Ha ha ... :)

I wish i had the complete judgement copy, just to see what were the arguments of both the parties.  

Hi sunny ther is no concept of considering heart as a plant.....if u do like that again we have 2 find capital gains on exchanging hearts each other nd hw mny years of using that heart nd again hw wil be treat our ,i mean under whch head it can be treated boss,so mny litigations

Is heart the only tool used for the professional activity ? What about other parts of the body?

ha ha :) truly n interesting case law :) , ya indeed it wud have been great to read the arguments too...

Hi anil, Yes i agree, in fact i do not agree that heart should be an asset, that is the reason i did post this article. I was wondering what could be argument of appelant, in this case the assessee Mr Bhushan, though the information gives an idea as to what the argument was based on, it would really be interesting to see the complete copy of judgement. 

Originally posted by : Mihir

Is heart the only tool used for the professional activity ? What about other parts of the body?

 

:):)

On a lighter note--- In fact brain is more important for a lawyer, if heart qualifies to be an asset, so is BRAIN !!! 

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”.


In fact, my professional work also is leading me to so much stress, and that the expenditure incurred by me for recreation is deductible u/s 31.

Very Interesting One.....thank you for Sharing...

If you have any material Regarding that case...plz let me know....

I m also Interesting in this case...

Have a Good day...

Originally posted by : !..SaNKeT..!

Very Interesting One.....thank you for Sharing...

If you have any material Regarding that case...plz let me know....

I m also Interesting in this case...

Have a Good day...

Very Interesting One.....thank you for Sharing...

An amazing case law also the grounds put by HC was very interesting.

ha.ha. realy mindblowing arguments made by an assessee.

And also the contention given by high court is also superb....

 

Just imagine balance sheet having brain heart lungs hands and legs etc as fixed (or current) assets:D

Ya wondering what were the arguments...

jokes apart very unique judgement by HC....

Has Mr.Bhushan not appealed further in SC?:P
 


CCI Pro

Leave a Reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register