Cit Vs. Sant Motor Stores

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that 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. orderprakash krishna, j.this is a reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act.the following question of law has been referred to this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in upholding the decision of the commissioner (appeals) whereby he directed the income tax officer to frame another assessment on the reconstituted firm for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-3-1976 ?'2. the assessment year involved is 1976-77. originally the assessee-firm consisted of six partners including three minors km. manprit, dilprit kaur and inderpit kaur. a fresh partnership deed was drawn with effect from 30-9-1975. harjeet singh, bhajan singh and smt. amrit kaur, who were also the partners in the old firm continued to be partners in the firm even after 30-9-1975. the aforesaid three minors retired from the partnership. section 187(2) of the income tax act provides that on retirement of partners, the old firm continues as it is a case of reconstitution of firm.3. the aforesaid controversy has been set at rest by a division bench of our court in the case of cit v. ram jas rai askaran das : [1996]218itr18(all) .4. in view of the aforesaid judgment the question referred is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. only one assessment has to be made for the entire previous year relevant for the assessment year 1976-77.