Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
Anti-Competitive Agreements - Monopoly - abuse of dominant position - principal bone of contention of the appellants is that Coal India Limited, the first appellant (CIL) being a monopoly created by a statute and duty bound to achieve the objects declared in Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India - bound by the Competition Act, 2002 or not - there is no merit in the contention of the appellants that the Act will not apply to the appellants for the reason that the appellants are governed by the Nationalisation Act and that Nationalisation Act cannot be reconciled with the Act. - SC
Anti-Competitive Agreements - Monopoly - abuse of dominant position - principal bone of contention of the appellants is that Coal India Limited, the first appellant (CIL) being a monopoly created by a statute and duty bound to achieve the objects declared in Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India - bound by the Competition Act, 2002 or not - there is no merit in the contention of the appellants that the Act will not apply to the appellants for the reason that the appellants are governed by the Nationalisation Act and that Nationalisation Act cannot be reconciled with the Act. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
