Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Price parallelism alone cannot establish a cartel u/s 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. Evidence of parallel pricing must be supplemented with 'plus factors' demonstrating conscious conduct rather than independent business decisions. In the present case, the limited evidence of exchange of calls between sugar mills and the industry association is insufficient to establish a contravention. No case of violation can be made out against any party, and the matters are directed to be closed forthwith. The order does not qualify for confidential treatment u/s 57 of the Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
