Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) examined whether Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL), a public sector undertaking, contravened Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by abusing its dominant position in the market for mining and supply of Beach Sand Sillimanite in India. CCI held that IREL is an 'enterprise' under the Act and the relevant geographic market is India. Despite IREL's high market share, CCI found no evidence of excessive or discriminatory pricing by IREL in violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(a)(i) respectively. CCI observed that differential pricing based on quantity, customer relationships, and assured offtake is a normal business practice. Consequently, CCI concluded that IREL did not contravene the provisions of Section 4 and directed the matter to be closed, while addressing confidentiality requests from parties.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) examined whether Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL), a public sector undertaking, contravened Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by abusing its dominant position in the market for mining and supply of Beach Sand Sillimanite in India. CCI held that IREL is an 'enterprise' under the Act and the relevant geographic market is India. Despite IREL's high market share, CCI found no evidence of excessive or discriminatory pricing by IREL in violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(a)(i) respectively. CCI observed that differential pricing based on quantity, customer relationships, and assured offtake is a normal business practice. Consequently, CCI concluded that IREL did not contravene the provisions of Section 4 and directed the matter to be closed, while addressing confidentiality requests from parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
