https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75619 HC dismissed the petitioner's contentions. It held that approval under s.35(2AB)(1) required a pre-condition agreement, executed only on 21.08.2008, so retrospective recognition back to 01.04.2004 could not be allowed. The grant for FY 2007-08 was correctly limited to capital expenditure (excluding land and building) under the applicable guidelines. The plea of denial of reasonable opportunity failed because the proviso to Rule 6(5A) mandates hearing only where an application is to be rejected, and here the application was allowed following prescribed procedure. en-us Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75619 HC dismissed the petitioner's contentions. It held that approval under s.35(2AB)(1) required a pre-condition agreement, executed only on 21.08.2008, so retrospective recognition back to 01.04.2004 could not be allowed. The grant for FY 2007-08 was correctly limited to capital expenditure (excluding land and building) under the applicable guidelines. The plea of denial of reasonable opportunity failed because the proviso to Rule 6(5A) mandates hearing only where an application is to be rejected, and here the application was allowed following prescribed procedure. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75619