TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to the incentive benefits claimed under Notification No. 43 (RE-2013) / 2009-14 dated 25.09.2013.
Analysis: The Court noted that the same notification had already been considered in an earlier writ petition and had been held to be covered by the Division Bench judgment in JSW Steel v. Union of India. Finding no reason to distinguish the present case from that earlier disposal, the Court adopted the same course and applied the earlier binding view to the present petition.
Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to the benefit claimed under the notification, in terms of the earlier Division Bench judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
