Cit Vs. Padampat Singhania

.....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. orderthe following question has been referred to us for opinion :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on a proper interpretation of rule 3 of the income tax rules, 1962 and section 2(24)(iv) of the income tax act, 1961, the tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the perquisite of free imported car with chauffeur provided to the assessee by j.k. cotton spg. & wvg. mills co. ltd., of which he was a director, should be the same as in the case of an employee of the company?'2. however, before we could start the case on merits, we asked the learned counsel for the parties that as to what would be the total amount of tax involved in this matter. sri upadhyay respectfully stated that total amount involved in the matter is more than rs. 6000-7000, for the reason that total valuation of the subject matter has been made to the extent of rs. 15,000 only.3. in cit v. smt. prakashwati : [1994]210itr567(all) of this court and in cwt v. executors of late shri d. t. udeshi : [1991]189itr319(bom) of bombay high court, it has been held relying upon the statutory circular that where the total amount involved is less than 30,000, the reference should be returned unanswered.4. thus, in view of the above decisions, considering the petty amount involved in this reference, we return the reference unanswered.