Taj Mahal Export Vs. Cit

Taj Mahal Export vs Cit

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 28, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/492593

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/492593
Court: Allahabad High Court
Decided On: Feb 28, 2002
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1033 of 2001 28 February 2002
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: Vikram Gulati, for the Assessee In the Allahabad High Court M. Katju & R. Tiwari, JJ. - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire...

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Taj Mahal Export

Advocate Vikram Gulati, <i>for the Assessee</i>

Respondent

Cit

Legal References

Reported In: [2003]128TAXMAN843(All)

Excerpt

.....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. .....exports, ghaziabad) and purchaser (al fayoom trading est dubai) regarding realization of sale proceeds was not produced. the commissioner has further said that no evidence was produced in respect of the claim of the petitioner that there was slump in dubai or the international market and that the sale proceeds could only be realized beyond a period of 2 years from the sale of the goods.4. shri vikram gulati, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that the commissioner has wrongly observed that the assessee has not produced the correspondence and other material regarding the realization of the sale proceeds. if that is so, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the learned commissioner, meerut, again by means of a suitable application, and if he can satisfy the commissioner that there were other materials and correspondences, which were placed before the commissioner, but which were not considered, then it will be open to the commissioner to reconsider his order and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.the learned counsel for the petitioner may approach the commissioner, meerut, who shall decide the same application in accordance with law expeditiously.the writ petition is disposed of, with these observations.

Full Judgment

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order by 22-5-2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) of the Commissioner, Meerut. The petitioner has claimed deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of profit obtained from the export business. The petitioner has filed an application before the Commissioner under clause (2)(a) of the aforesaid provision, which has been rejected by the Commissioner against which he has filed this writ petition.

3. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Commissioner. The Commissioner has mentioned that the petitioner has produced a fax message dated 10-1-1999, stating that due to heavy slump in Dubai the payment could not be made in time. However, the Commissioner has doubted the genuineness of this fax message as correspondence between the petitioner (Taj Mahal Exports, Ghaziabad) and purchaser (Al Fayoom Trading EST Dubai) regarding realization of sale proceeds was not produced. The Commissioner has further said that no evidence was produced in respect of the claim of the petitioner that there was slump in Dubai or the International Market and that the sale proceeds could only be realized beyond a period of 2 years from the sale of the goods.

4. Shri Vikram Gulati, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that the Commissioner has wrongly observed that the assessee has not produced the correspondence and other material regarding the realization of the sale proceeds. If that is so, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the learned Commissioner, Meerut, again by means of a suitable application, and if he can satisfy the Commissioner that there were other materials and correspondences, which were placed before the Commissioner, but which were not considered, then it will be open to the Commissioner to reconsider his order and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for the petitioner may approach the Commissioner, Meerut, who shall decide the same application in accordance with law expeditiously.

The writ petition is disposed of, with these observations.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Taj Mahal Export vs Cit Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation