Cit Vs. NaraIn Sugar Industries

.....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. orderin spite of notice issued to the assessee that his counsel has been elevated to the bench, none entered appearance, therefore, we decide the case after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, shri a. mahajan.2. the following question has been referred to for our opinion :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of rs. 81.603 from the total income of the assessee?'the question referred to herein is squarely covered by the judgment of the honble apex court in k.c.p. ltd. v. cit : [2000]245itr421(sc) wherein it has been held that if a receipt is a trading receipt the fact that it is not so shown in the account books of the assessee would not prevent the assessing authority from treating it as a trading receipt. it is the true nature and quality of the receipt and not the head under which it is entered in the account books which is decisive. eventually if the amount so collected is passed on to the state government or refunded to the purchasers, the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction of the sum when so paid or refunded.3. thus, in view of the above, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue department and against the assessee.