Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Airlines Cleared: No Cartel Found on International Routes; Competition Remains Healthy in Indian Air Travel Market.

        Travel Agents Association of India Versus Lufthansa German Airlines

        Travel Agents Association of India Versus Lufthansa German Airlines - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Relevant Market Determination
        2. Alleged Cartel Formation
        3. Abuse of Dominant Position
        4. Procedural Discipline in Investigation
        5. Impact on Competition and Consumers

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Relevant Market Determination:
        The appellant argued that the relevant market should be based on specific routes operated by individual airlines. However, the CCI concluded that the relevant market was the international routes to and from India, not specific routes. The CCI reasoned that routes are substitutable as long as the consumer reaches the destination, making the whole of India the relevant geographic market. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that it would be incorrect to consider a single route as the relevant market for a particular airline.

        2. Alleged Cartel Formation:
        The appellant claimed that the airlines had formed a cartel to stop paying commissions to travel agents. The Director General's investigation found no evidence of cartelization. It was noted that cartels are usually formed among competing enterprises, but the respondents were not competitors as they served different destinations. There was no meeting of minds to form a cartel, as decisions to reduce commissions were made independently and on different dates. The Tribunal agreed with this finding, noting the lack of evidence for any interaction or agreement among the airlines to form a cartel.

        3. Abuse of Dominant Position:
        The appellant alleged that the airlines, collectively holding 90% market share, were in a dominant position and abused it by imposing unfair conditions. The Director General found that none of the respondents individually held a market share exceeding 5-6% in the international traffic. The CCI upheld this finding, stating that dominance under Section 4 pertains to a single enterprise or group of enterprises, and there was no evidence of any single airline or group holding a dominant position. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing the lack of substantial market share by any individual airline.

        4. Procedural Discipline in Investigation:
        The appellant contended that the investigation process lacked procedural discipline. However, the CCI and the Tribunal found that the Director General conducted an extensive investigation, considering data from credible sources like DGCA and CAPA. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide specific statistics to counter the findings of the Director General. The investigation was deemed thorough and procedurally sound.

        5. Impact on Competition and Consumers:
        The appellant argued that the abolition of commissions had an appreciable adverse effect on competition and harmed consumers. The Director General's report, supported by the CCI, found no evidence of increased air ticket prices or reduced competition. It was noted that the number of IATA travel agents had increased, and the transition to the Net Fare Model was in line with global trends. The Tribunal agreed, stating that consumers were not harmed, and the market remained competitive.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the CCI's findings:
        1. The relevant market was correctly determined as the international routes to and from India.
        2. There was no evidence of cartel formation among the airlines.
        3. None of the airlines held a dominant position in the relevant market.
        4. The investigation was procedurally sound.
        5. There was no adverse impact on competition or consumers.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found