.....of lawexport markets development allowanceheld: where the tribunal had only remanded back the case to income tax officer to examine petitioner s claim for weighted deduction under section 35b, no question of law arose out of tribunal s order.
income tax act, 1961 s.256(1)
income tax act, 1961 s.35b
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 is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under 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.....1. this 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 income tax officer was under a duty to allow the deduction under section 35b even though there was no such claim before him ?'2. a perusal of the order of the tribunal shows that the tribunal has only remanded the case to the income tax officer to examine the petitioners claim for weighted deduction under section 35b of the income tax act, 1961.3. in our opinion, no question of law arises out of the order of the tribunal. hence, the question is returned unanswered.