Cit Vs. A.D. Qureshi

.....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. .....this is an income-tax reference under section 256(2) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) in pursuance of direction of the high court. following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the income of the two periods could not be clubbed 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the department's view that there was only a change in the constitution of the first and that only one single assessment was justified in view of the provisions of section 187(1) of the income tax act, 1961 is correct in law ?'3. the assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. the firm consisted of three partners and two minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership. after 17-12-1975 the both minors were dropped and five new partners were taken into the partnership. the question whether there was dissolution or mere reconstitution of the firm has to be answered in light of section 187 of the act. it is as follows :'change in constitution of a firm-(1) where at the time of making an assessment under section 143 or section 144 it is found that a change has occurred in the constitution of a firm, the assessment shall be made on the firm as constituted at the time of making the assessment.(2) for the purpose of this section, there is a change in the constitution of the firm(a) if one or more of the partners cease to be partners or one or more new partners are admitted, in such circumstances that one or more of the persons who were partners of the firm before the change continue as partner or partners after the change; or(b) where all the partners continue with a change in their respective shares or in the share of some of them :provided that nothing contained in clause (a) shall apply to a case where the firm is dissolved on the death of any of its partners.'4. it is not disputed that the three.....