https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30825 Approval under Section 10(15A) could not be refused merely because new lease terms resembled earlier agreements where the aircraft ownership had genuinely changed and the earlier arrangements had been terminated for commercial necessity. The rejection order was found to lack a cogent legal basis and was set aside, resulting in approval of the fresh lease agreements. On refund, the petitioners were required to make the appropriate application, and the authority was directed to process it expeditiously. The prior refusal did not bar reconsideration and grant of the substantive relief once the rejection was quashed. en-us Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30825 Approval under Section 10(15A) could not be refused merely because new lease terms resembled earlier agreements where the aircraft ownership had genuinely changed and the earlier arrangements had been terminated for commercial necessity. The rejection order was found to lack a cogent legal basis and was set aside, resulting in approval of the fresh lease agreements. On refund, the petitioners were required to make the appropriate application, and the authority was directed to process it expeditiously. The prior refusal did not bar reconsideration and grant of the substantive relief once the rejection was quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30825