Anil Metal Industries Vs. Cit

.....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. orderthis is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961. in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80j of the income tax act, 1961 in respect of borrowed capital having regard to the provisions of section 80j as amended by finance act (no. 2) of 1980 ?'2. the assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1979-80, the petitioner filed a return claiming the benefit under section 80j of the income tax act and the question involved is whether borrowed capital is to be included in the total capital employed by the assessee for getting relief under section 80j of the income tax act. it has been held in lohia machines ltd. v. union of india : [1985]152itr308(sc) that borrowed capital cannot be included in the self-employed capital for getting relief under section 80j.3. in the circumstances of the case the question referred to us is answered in the negative that is in favour of department and against the assessee.