a) Parthiv Patel claimed various expenses under the head business development, office, salary, office rent, other interests, petrol expenses, etc., against income earned from playing cricket.
b) Assessing Officer (AO) declined above expenditure on the ground that since assessee had been deriving match fee and retainerships from various cricket bodies, such expenditure was not attributable to his business or profession.
c) AO was of the view that playing cricket is not akin to a trading or manufacturing or any service activity. Thus, he concluded that such expenditure was not attributable to any business or profession so as to be termed as business expenditure.
Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:
1) Neither AO nor Commissioner (Appeals) had sought to establish a direct nexus between assessees professional income from playing cricket along with his expenditure in question claimed u/s 37 of the Act.
2) The learned CIT(A) has merely drawn his conclusions qua genuineness aspect instead of establishing the above stated nexus between each head of expenditure vis-à-vis assessee's taxable income.
3) The issue related to disallowance of expenses requires AO’s re-adjudication in accordance with law aer aording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee so as to prove the direct nexus with income earned.
4) Therefore, expenses incurred by assessee is deductible against cricketing income if it has nexus with such income. -  78 taxmann.com 4 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)