Cit Vs. Shashi Kumar Agrawal

.....power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - shashi kumar agrawal [1992]195itr767(all) wherein it has been held that the profit from the sale of land after plotting it out to secure better price cannot be taxed as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade.orderheard shri ashok kumar, learned counsel for the applicant; and shri pankaj mittal, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. the following question of law has been referred to this court for opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profit arising from the sale of plots should be taxed as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade or the same should be taxed under the head 'capital gains'?'3. similar question was considered in cit v. shashi kumar agrawal : [1992]195itr767(all) wherein it has been held that the profit from the sale of land after plotting it out to secure better price cannot be taxed as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade.4. in view of the above decision, we answer the question referred to above in negative, i.e., it cannot be taxed as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade.5. the reference is accordingly disposed of. the parties shall bear their own costs.