Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
