{"id":203616,"date":"1960-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960"},"modified":"2017-08-25T13:38:04","modified_gmt":"2017-08-25T08:08:04","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 748, \t\t 1961 SCR (2) 644<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY I\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  JAGANNATH KISSONLAL, BOMBAY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/11\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  748\t\t  1961 SCR  (2) 644\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1961 SC 668\t (8)\n R\t    1965 SC 321\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome\tTax--Money borrowed by two Persons for business pur-\nPoses on joint and several liability--One failing to pay his\nshare--Whole Paid by another--Unpaid sum by  Co-borrower--If\ndeductible  as\tbusiness loss--Commercial  custom  of  joint\nborrowing--Mutuality--Indian  Income  Tax Act, 1922  (11  of\n1922), S. 10(2)(XV).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nFor  the purposes of its business the respondent borrowed  a\ncertain\t sum  of money from the Bank of India on  a  pronote\nexecuted  jointly  by him and one Kishorilal  in  accordance\nwith  a\t commercial  practice of  carrying  on\tbusiness  by\nborrowing  money from Banks on joint and several  liability.\nThe  money was divided half and half between the  respondent\nand  Kishorilal\t but  Kishorilal  failed  to  pay  off\t his\nliability as he became a bankrupt and the respondent had  to\npay the whole amount to the Bank.  The respondent,  however,\nreceived from the Official Assignee a part of the sum  taken\nby  the\t Kishorilal  leaving a balance\tstill  unpaid.\t The\nrespondent's  claim to deduct this unpaid balance  under  s.\n10(2)(XV)  of the Income-tax Act was refused by the  Income-\ntax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but was\nallowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on appeal.\t  On\na  reference made at the instance of the appellant the\tHigh\nCourt  decided\tthe  question in favour\t of  the  respondent\nassessee.  On appeal by the appellant by special leave,\nHeld, that the view taken by the High Court was correct.  On\nthe  finding  that there was a\twell  establised  Commercial\npractice  of financing business by borrowing money on  joint\nand  several liability and by so doing the respondent  could\nborrow\tat  a  lower rate of interest, and  that  there\t was\nmutuality between the borrowers for standing surety for each\nother for loans taken for business purposes, the  respondent\nassessee  in computing his business profits was entitled  to\ndeduct\tthe loss suffered by him in paying the sum not\tpaid\nby his co-borrower.\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Ramaswami Chettiar, [1946]  14\nI.T.R. 236, applied.\nMadan  Gopal  Bagla  v.\t Commissioner  of  Income-tax,\tWest\nBengal,<\/a>\t [1956] S. C. R. 551, Commissioner or Income-tax  v.\nS. R. Subramanya Pillai, [1950] 18 I T. R. 85 distinguished.\nMontreal Coke and Manufacturing Co. v. Minister of  National\nRevenue, [1945] 13 I.T.R. Supp. 1, not applicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 358 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
645<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\n8th  March, 1956, of the former Bombay High Court in  I.T.R.
\nNo. 55 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
A. N. Kripal and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
\nN. A. Palkhivala and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondents.
\n1960.  November 24.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nKAPUR,\tJ. -This is an appeal by special leave\tagainst\t the
\njudgment and order of the High Court of Bombay in Income-tax
\nReference No. 55 of 1955, in which two questions of law were
\nstated\tfor opinion and both were answered in favour of\t the
\nassessee  and against the Commissioner of Income-tax who  is
\nthe appellant before us and the assessee is the respondent.
\nThe facts of this case are these:\n<\/p>\n
The respondent is a registered firm carrying on business  as
\ncommission  agents in Bombay.  For purposes of its  business
\nit  borrowed  money from time to time from  Banks  on  joint
\npromissory notes executed by it and by others with joint and
\nseveral\t liability.  On September 26, 1949,  the  respondent
\nborrowed  Rs. 1,00,000 from the Bank of India on  a  pronote
\nexecuted jointly with one Kishorilal.  Out of this amount  a
\nsum  of Rs. 50,000 was taken by the respondent for  purposes
\nof  its\t business and the rest\tby  Kishorilal.\t  Kishorilal
\nhowever failed to meet his liability and became a  bankrupt.
\nThe  respondent\t had  therefore to pay the  Bank  the  whole
\namount, i.e., Rs. 1,00,000 with interest.  Out of the amount
\ntaken\tby  Kishorilal\tthe  respondent\t received   in\t the
\naccounting  year, from the Official Assignee, a sum  of\t Rs.
\n18,805\tand  claimed  the  balance,  i.e.,  Rs.\t 31,740\t  as
\ndeduction.  The accounting year was from August 26, 1949  to
\nJuly  17,  1950, the assessment year  being  1951-52.\tThis
\nclaim was disallowed both by the Income-tax Officer as\twell
\nas  the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.  On Appeal to\t the
\nIncome-tax  Appellate Tribunal this sum was allowed  ,as  an
\nallowable deduction under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act
\nand as business loss.\n<\/p>\n
82<\/span>
\n646<\/span><\/p>\n
At the instance of the Commissioner a case was stated to the
\nHigh Court of Bombay by the Income-tax\tAppellate  Tribunal.
\nIn  the\t statement of the case which was agreed to  by\tboth
\nparties the Tribunal said:\n<\/p>\n
“For  the purpose of his business, he borrows from  time  to
\ntime  money on joint and several liability from\t banks.\t The
\nCommercial  practice is to borrow money from banks on  joint
\nand several liability.\tAn illustration will explain what we
\nmean.  A and B require Rs. 50,000 each.\t They find that\t the
\nBank would not advance Rs. 50,000 to each on his  individual
\nsecurity.   They  however,  find  that\tthe  Bank  would  be
\nprepared  to  advance  Rupees one lach on  their  joint\t and
\nseveral\t liability.  They take Rupees one lac on  joint\t and
\nseveral liability and then divide the money equally  between
\nthemselves.”\n<\/p>\n
It  also  found\t that  the Banks  advanced  monies  to\tsome
\nconstituents on their personal security also but they had to
\npay  a\thigher\trate of interest than  when  the  money\t was
\nborrowed  on  joint  and several  responsibility;  that\t Rs.
\n1,00,000  borrowed from the Bank was in accordance with\t the
\ncommercial practice of Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
On  these  facts  the following two questions  of  law\twere
\nreferred to the High Court:-\n<\/p>\n
“(1)  Whether  the assessee’s claim  is\t sustainable   under
\nsection 10(2)(xv) of the Act?\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Whether  the  assessee’s  claim that  the\tloss  was  a
\nbusiness  loss and, therefore, allowable as a  deduction  in
\ncomputing   the\t profits  of  the  assessee’s  business\t  is
\nsustainable under law?”\n<\/p>\n
Both  these  questions\twere  answered\tin  favour  of\t the
\nrespondent and against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the Commissioner challenged the findings of\t the
\nTribunal  in regard to the existence of commercial  practice
\nin Bombay but this ground of attack is not available to\t him
\nbecause\t not only did the Tribunal give this finding in\t its
\nOrder,\tbut  in the agreed statement of the case  also\tthis
\nfinding\t was  repeated\tas is shown by\tthe  passage  quoted
\nabove.\t The High Court also has proceeded on the  basis  of
\nthis commercial practice.  In the judgment under appeal\t the
\nlearned Chief Justice said:\n<\/p>\n
647<\/span><\/p>\n
“The finding of the Tribunal is clear and explicit that what
\nthe  assessee  was  doing  was\tnot  something\tout  of\t the
\nordinary,  but in borrowing this money on joint and  several
\nliability he was following a practice which was\t established
\nas  a commercial practice.  Therefore, the  transaction\t was
\nclearly in the course of the business and incidental to\t the
\nbusiness and it is this transaction which resulted in a loss
\nto  the\t assesses,  he having to pay the  liability  of\t the
\nsurety.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore this appeal has to be decided on the basis that  a
\ncommercial practice of financing business by borrowing money
\non joint and several liability was established.
\nIt was argued on behalf of the appellant that this court  in
\nMadan Gopal Bagla v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal<\/a>
\n(1)  had  decided against the allowability of  such  losses.
\nBut  the facts of that case when carefully  scrutinised\t are
\ndistinguishable\t and  the  decision  does  not\tsupport\t the
\ncontentions of the appellant.  No doubt certain features  of
\nthat case and the present one are similar but they differ in
\nessential features.  In that case the assessee was a  timber
\nmerchant  who obtained a loan of Rs. 1 lac from the Bank  of
\nIndia on the joint security of himself and one Mamraj, which
\nthe  assessee paid off.\t Mamraj also obtained a loan of\t Rs.
\nI  lac\ton the joint security of himself and  the  assessee.
\nMamraj\tbecame an insolvent and the assessee had to pay\t the
\nwhole  of  the amount borrowed with interest  thereon.\t The
\nassessee there received a certain amount of money by way  of
\ndividends from the Receiver and the balance he wrote off  as
\nbad  debt  in  the  assessment year and\t claimed  it  as  an
\nallowable deduction under s. 10.  The High Court there\theld
\nthat  the debt could not be said to be a debt in respect  of
\nthe  business of the assessee as he was not carrying on\t the
\nbusiness  of standing surety for other persons nor was he  a
\nmoney-lender, he being simply a timber merchant; that it had
\nnot  been established nor was it alleged that he was in\t the
\nhabit of standing surety for other persons “along with\tthem
\nfor  purposes of securing loans for their use  and  benefit”
\nand even if money
\n(1)  [1956] S.C.R. 551.\n<\/p>\n
648<\/span><\/p>\n
had  been  so borrowed and there had been a  loss  the\tloss
\nwould  have been a capital loss and not a business  loss  to
\nthe  assessee.\t This statement of the law was\tapproved  by
\nthis  Court but there mutuality, as an essential  ingredient
\nof the custom established, was found to\t   be lacking as  is
\nshown  by  the following passage from  the judgment  of\t the
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
“The   custom\tstated\tbefore\t the   Appellate   Assistant
\nCommissioner was that persons carrying on business in Bombay
\nused  to borrow monies on joint security from the  Banks  in
\norder  to facilitate getting financial assistance  from\t the
\nBanks\tand  that  too\tat  lower  rates  of  interest.\t   A
\nbusinessman  could  procure financial  assistance  from\t the
\nBanks  on his own, but he would in that case have to  pay  a
\nhigher rate of interest.  He would have to pay a lower\trate
\nof interest if he could procure as surety another  business-
\nman, who would be approved by the Bank.\t This, however,\t did
\nnot  mean  that\t mutual\t accommodation\tby  businessmen\t was
\nnecessarily  an\t ingredient part of that  custom.   A  could
\nprocure B, C or D to join him as surety in order to  achieve
\nthis objective, but it did not necessarily follow that if  A
\nwanted\tto procure B, C or D to thus join him as  surety  he
\ncould  only do so if he in his own turn joined B, C or D  as
\nsurety in the loans which B, C or D procured in their  turns
\nfrom  the Banks for financing their  respective\t businesses.
\nUnless that factor was established, the mere procurement  by
\nA  of  B,  C  or D as surety  would  not  be  sufficient  to
\nestablish  the\tcustom\tsought\tto be  relied  upon  by\t the
\nappellant so as to make the transaction of his having joined
\nMumraj\tRambhagat as surety in the loan procured  by  Mumraj
\nRambhagat from Imperial Bank of India, a transaction in\t the
\ncourse\tof carrying on his own timber business and  to\tmake
\nthe loss in the transaction a trading loss or a bad debt  of
\nthe timber business of the appellant.”\n<\/p>\n
Continuing at page 558 it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
“There\twere  thus elements of mutuality and  the  essential
\ningredient in the carrying on of the money lending business,
\nwhich were elements of the custom
\n649<\/span>
\nproved in that case, both of which are wanting in the
\npresent case before us.”\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Palkhivala for the respondent rightly argued that  Madan
\nGopal  Bagla’s\tcase (1) was decided  against  the  assessee
\nbecause the custom of persons standing surety for each other
\nfor  borrowing money and the element of mutuality which\t was
\nan  essential  ingredient  in the case\tof  Commissioner  of
\nIncome\tTax, Madras v. S. A. S. Ramaswamy Chettiar<\/a>  (2)\t was
\nnot  proved.   In the latter case it  was  established\tthat
\nthere  was  a well recognised custom  amongst  Chettiars  of
\nraising\t funds\tfor their business of money lenders  by\t the
\nexecution of joint pronotes and that if a loss was sustained
\nby one of the executants having to pay the whole on  account
\nof inability of the other it was a deductible loss.
\nThe  appellant also relied on a judgment of the Madras\tHigh
\nCourt  in  Commissioner of Income Tax v.  S.  R.  Subramanya
\nPillai<\/a> (3).  In that case the assessee was a book-seller who
\nfrom time to time jointly with another person borrowed money
\nout of which he employed a portion in his business.  One  of
\nsuch  amounts  borrowed\t was Rs. 16,200\t out  of  which\t the
\nassessee  took\tRs. 10,450 for his business  needs  and\t the
\nother debtor took the balance.\tThe latter became  insolvent
\nand the assessee had to pay the whole of the money  borrowed
\nand claimed it as allowable deduction under s. 10(2)(xi)  or
\ns. 10(2)(xv) of the Act or as business loss and it was\thold
\nthat he was not entitled, because the loss sustained by\t the
\nassessee  was too remote from the business  of\tbook-selling
\ncarried\t on by him and was not sufficiently  connected\twith
\nthe  trade  and therefore fell outside the  range  of  those
\namounts which could properly be brought into profit and loss
\naccount\t of the business.  The decision in  Commissioner  of
\nIncome\tTax  v. S. A. S. Ramaswamy Chettiar  (2)  was  there
\ndistinguished  on  the\tground that  the  decision  must  be
\nconfined  to  its own peculiar facts and did  not  apply  to
\nbusiness  as the one in Subramanya Pillai’s Case  (3).\t The
\nfollowing passage from
\n(1) (1956) S.C.R, 551,\t     (2) (1946) 14 I.T.R. 236.
\n(3) [1950] 18 I.T.R. 85.\n<\/p>\n
650<\/span><\/p>\n
the  judgment  of  Viswanatha Sastri, J., in  that  case  is
\nrelevant:-\n<\/p>\n
“But  there  the business was one of money lending  and\t the
\nCourt  found  that  according to  the  wellknown  and  well-
\nrecognised  mercantile custom of Nattukottai  bankers,\tthey
\nwere in the habit of raising ‘funds which formed the  stock-
\nin-trade of their money lending business by the execution of
\njoint  promissory  notes  in favour of\tbankers.   That\t was
\napparently  the usual technique of obtaining credit  adopted
\nby  the Nattukottai Chetti community money-lenders.  In\t the
\ncontext\t this  Court held that where  a\t Nattukottai  Chetti
\nmoney-lender  paid off in their entirety the  debts  jointly
\ndue by him and another as a result of the latter’s inability
\nto  pay, the loss sustained as a result of this\t transaction
\nwas a loss of the moneylending business itself and therefore
\na deductible item in computing profits.”\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case it has been found that there was a\twell
\nrecognised  commercial\tpractice in Bombay  of\tcarrying  on
\nbusiness by borrowing money from Banks on joint and  several
\nliability.  It was also found that by so doing the  borrower
\ncould  borrow  money  at a lower rate of  interest  than  he
\notherwise  would  have\tpaid; that the\trespondent  had,  in
\naccordance with the commercial practice, borrowed the money,
\nthe  whole  of\twhich he had to\t return\t because  the  joint
\npromisor Kishori Lal had become bankrupt; mutuality was also
\nheld  proved.  It cannot be said that the essential  feature
\nof  the\t case now before us is in principle  different\tfrom
\nthat of the Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramaswamy Chettiar
\n(1).   In both cases the finding is that there is  mutuality
\nand  custom  of borrowing money on joint  pronotes  for\t the
\ncarrying   on\tof  business.\tIn  our\t  opinion   in\t the
\ncircumstances  proved in the present case, and on the  facts
\nestablished  and on the findings given, the  respondent\t was
\nrightly\t held  to be entitled to deduct the loss  which\t was
\nsuffered by him in the transaction in dispute.
\nCounsel for the assessee drew our attention to a
\n(1)  (1946) 14 I.T.R. 236.\n<\/p>\n
651<\/span><\/p>\n
Privy  Council judgment Montreal Coke and Manufacturing\t Co.
\nv. Minister of National Revenue (1) but that, case can\thave
\nno  application to the facts of the present case because  it
\nwas  found  there as a fact that the  assessees’s  financial
\narrangements  were  quite distinct from\t the  activities  by
\nwhich  they earned their income and expenditure incurred  in
\nrelation  to  the  financing’  of  their  business  was\t not
\nexpenditure  in\t the  earning of  their\t income\t within\t the
\nstatute.\n<\/p>\n
It was then contended that the loss of the respondent was  a
\n0capital loss and for this again reliance was placed on\t the
\njudgment of this Court in Madan Gopal Bagla’s case (2 )\t and
\nparticularly on the observation at page 559 where  Bhagwati,
\nJ., quoted with approval the observations of the High  Court
\nin the judgment but as we have pointed out the facts of that
\ncase  are  distinguishable and what was said  there  has  no
\napplication  to\t the facts and circumstances proved  in\t the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
In  our view the judgment of the High Court is right and  we
\ntherefore dismiss this appeal with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tAppeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 748, 1961 SCR (2) 644 Author: K L. Bench: Kapur, J.L. PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY I Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. JAGANNATH KISSONLAL, BOMBAY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/11\/1960 BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1960-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-25T08:08:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs M\\\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-25T08:08:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960\"},\"wordCount\":2361,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs M\\\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-25T08:08:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs M\\\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-25T08:08:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960","datePublished":"1960-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-25T08:08:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960"},"wordCount":2361,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960","name":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-25T08:08:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-jagannath-kissonlal-bombay-on-24-november-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs M\/S. Jagannath Kissonlal, Bombay on 24 November, 1960"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}