Cwt Vs. Ajit Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
head note: income tax wealth tax valuation--immovable propertyreversionary value of landheld: reversionary value of land cannot be excluded while valuing the immovable property by capitalizing net annual value. wealth tax act, 1957 s.7 wealth tax exemption under section 5(1)(iv)--partner s share in value of immovable properties of a firmheld: assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) in respect of his share in the value of immovable properties which belonged to the firm of which the assessee was a partner. wealth tax act, 1957 s.5(1)(iv) in the allahabad high court m. katju & u. 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 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 for a reference under section 27(1) of the wealth tax act in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion.'1. whether, the income tax appellate tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the wealth tax act in respect of his share in the value of the immovable properties which belonged to the firm of which the assessee was a partner?2. whether, the income tax appellate tribunal was justified in law it) holding that reversionary value of the land cannot be included while valuing the immovable property by capitalizing net annual value?'2. the first question is covered against the department by the decision of the supreme court in cwt v. ts. sundaram (1999) 237 itr 611 while the second question is also covered by the decision of this court against the department in cwt v. ram saran kajriwal (1987) 168 itr 485.3. following the aforesaid decisions the questions referred are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.

Judgment:
ORDER

This is for a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion.

'1. Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of his share in the value of the immovable properties which belonged to the firm of which the assessee was a partner?

2. Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law it) holding that reversionary value of the land cannot be included while valuing the immovable property by capitalizing net annual value?'

2. The first question is covered against the department by the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. TS. Sundaram (1999) 237 ITR 611 while the second question is also covered by the decision of this court against the department in CWT v. Ram Saran Kajriwal (1987) 168 ITR 485.

3. Following the aforesaid decisions the questions referred are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.