Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ashwani Dhingra Vs. Ccit

Ashwani Dhingra vs Ccit

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Oct 29, 2003
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/492622

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number
Writ No. 1001 of 2003 29 October 2003
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

In the Allahabad High Court M. Katju & Umeshwar Pandey, 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 a particular land. Land acquisition i...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashwani Dhingra

Respondent

Ccit

Legal References

Reported In
[2004]140TAXMAN84(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. sri pankaj awasthhi appeared for the department.2. petitoners waiver application under section 273a of the income tax act has been dismissed as premature, vide order dated 23-7-2003 (annexure-3 to the writ petition). that order is under challenge before us.3. it appears that subsequently the petitioner filed another application before commissioner of income tax dated 4-9-2003, copy of which is annexure ca-2 to the counter affidavit which is said to be pending. this application dated 4-9-2003 can be treated to be a fresh waiver application and hence we direct the authority concerned to decide the same and any other application preferably within 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.4. if petitioner files certified copy of this order before the concerned authority within ten days from today, the same shall be decided on merits, and till the decision the impugned recovery shall remain stayed. petition disposed of.

Full Judgment

Sri Pankaj Awasthhi appeared for the department.

2. Petitoners waiver application under section 273A of the Income Tax Act has been dismissed as premature, vide order dated 23-7-2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). That order is under challenge before us.

3. It appears that subsequently the petitioner filed another application before Commissioner of Income Tax dated 4-9-2003, copy of which is Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit which is said to be pending. This application dated 4-9-2003 can be treated to be a fresh waiver application and hence we direct the authority concerned to decide the same and any other application preferably within 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

4. If petitioner files certified copy of this order before the concerned authority within ten days from today, the same shall be decided on merits, and till the decision the impugned recovery shall remain stayed. Petition disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial