Cit Vs. Vijay Kumar (Huf)

..... 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. - cwt [1994]207itr1(sc) ,wherein the same rule 1d of the wealth tax rules, 1958, prescribing, the break-up method for valuing unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company) has been held to be perfectly valid and effective.orderthis is a reference under section 256(2) of the income tax act, 1961. the learned tribunal referred the following questions :'1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was legally correct in confirming the appellate assistant commissioners orders who worked out the value of shares on the basis of break-up value method in the case of m/s. carew and company and upper ganges sugar company where the shares are quoted ones leaving aside the correct value as worked out by the approved valuer under section 55a on the request of the assessee ?2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was legally justified in holding that provisions of section 52(2) are not applicable in this case ?'2. heard sri shambhu chopra, learned standing counsel for the revenue. none is present for the assessee.3. the case is fully covered by the judgment of the honble supreme court in bharat hari singhania v. cwt : [1994]207itr1(sc) , wherein the same rule 1d of the wealth tax rules, 1958, prescribing, the break-up method for valuing unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company) has been held to be perfectly valid and effective. neither it is inconsistent with section 7(1) of the wealth tax act, 1957, nor does it travel beyond the purview of section 7(1).4. thus, in view of the above, the question is answered in the favour of the assessee and against the revenue.