Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
The Commission perused the material and public domain information. The Informant alleged unfair and discriminatory interest rate hikes, frequent increases, and pre-payment penalties by OP-1, creating barriers for new entrants as consumers would be disinclined to switch due to potential losses. Conduct allegedly violated Sections 3(1), 3(2), and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The relevant market was delineated as 'provision of loan against property in India'. OP-1's dominance was not established due to the competitive presence of numerous banks, NBFCs, and housing finance companies. Allegations of aftermarket abuse were rejected as misplaced. No prima facie case was made out u/ss 3 and 4. The matter was closed u/s 26(2) as no competition concerns arose.
The Commission perused the material and public domain information. The Informant alleged unfair and discriminatory interest rate hikes, frequent increases, and pre-payment penalties by OP-1, creating barriers for new entrants as consumers would be disinclined to switch due to potential losses. Conduct allegedly violated Sections 3(1), 3(2), and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The relevant market was delineated as 'provision of loan against property in India'. OP-1's dominance was not established due to the competitive presence of numerous banks, NBFCs, and housing finance companies. Allegations of aftermarket abuse were rejected as misplaced. No prima facie case was made out u/ss 3 and 4. The matter was closed u/s 26(2) as no competition concerns arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
