https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20478 Judicial review of a Board refusal under section 80-O is confined to apparent error of law, not appellate reappraisal. The Bombay HC held that rejection of approval solely because the services were said to fall within section 80HHB could not stand, since section 80HHB was introduced later and the agreement predated it. As the exact nature of the contractual services could not be conclusively determined in writ proceedings, the matter was sent back for fresh consideration by the Board under section 80-O alone, without reliance on section 80HHB. en-us Mon, 02 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:59:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20478 Judicial review of a Board refusal under section 80-O is confined to apparent error of law, not appellate reappraisal. The Bombay HC held that rejection of approval solely because the services were said to fall within section 80HHB could not stand, since section 80HHB was introduced later and the agreement predated it. As the exact nature of the contractual services could not be conclusively determined in writ proceedings, the matter was sent back for fresh consideration by the Board under section 80-O alone, without reliance on section 80HHB. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20478