Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Madan Gopal Bagla. on 8 June, 1951

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Jagannath Kisonlal on 8 March, 1956

6. The third decision relied upon by the Advocate-General is a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Madan Gopal Bagla . In that case the assessee, who was a timber merchant, obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Bank of India, Bombay, on the joint security of himself and another man called Mamraj. On the same day Mamraj obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Imperial Bank of India, Bombay, on the joint security of himself and the assessee.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Jagannath Kisonlal on 8 March, 1956

8. The third decision relied upon by the Advocate-General is a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Madan Gopal Bagla. In that case the assessee, who was a timber merchant, obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 from the bank of India, Bombay, on the joint security of himself and another man called Mamraj. On the same day Mamraj obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 from the Imperial Bank of India, Bombay, on the joint security of himself and the assessee. The assessee paid off his debt to the Bank of India in the time, but Mamraj failed to pay his. The Imperial Bank realised from the assessee the debt which he owed jointly with Mamraj. Later on Mamraj became an insolvent and the Calcutta High Court rejected the contention of the assessee. The Advocate-General has rightly pointed out that in this case the Tribunal which decided in favour of the assessee did find that it was the usual custom in Bombay to secure loans on joint security and it was on this group that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that if such a custom existed kit would be sufficient to make the loss which the assessee had the suffered as an allowable deduction in the computation of his profits. When we look at that judgment, the learned Judges emphasise certain aspects of the matter which distinguish that case from the case before us. At page 146 in the judgment the learned Judges say :
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1