Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Disciplinary proportionality requires penalties for Authorised Representative misconduct to match proven harm, leading to reconsideration of registrat...
The CCI dismissed allegations of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Regarding Section 3, the Commission found no evidence of bid-rigging or cartel behavior between the opposing parties despite allegations of a tacit agreement in tender awarding. For Section 4 claims, the Commission determined that appointment of a Project Management Consultant and issuance of an allegedly faulty Request for Proposal fell within the procurer's legitimate discretion and were not inherently abusive without supporting evidence of statutory violations. Finding no prima facie case of contravention, the Commission closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act and rejected the request for interim relief under Section 33.
The CCI dismissed allegations of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Regarding Section 3, the Commission found no evidence of bid-rigging or cartel behavior between the opposing parties despite allegations of a tacit agreement in tender awarding. For Section 4 claims, the Commission determined that appointment of a Project Management Consultant and issuance of an allegedly faulty Request for Proposal fell within the procurer's legitimate discretion and were not inherently abusive without supporting evidence of statutory violations. Finding no prima facie case of contravention, the Commission closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act and rejected the request for interim relief under Section 33.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
