TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
SC held that Schott India's volume-based discount scheme did not constitute anti-competitive behavior. The Court found no evidence of discriminatory pricing, exclusionary practices, or market foreclosure. The functional rebate and long-term supply agreement were deemed objectively justified. Critically, the Court emphasized that an effects-based harm analysis is essential under Section 4 of the Competition Act. The investigation was procedurally flawed due to denial of cross-examination, rendering the Competition Commission's original order invalid. The Appellate Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the complainant was ordered to pay Rs. 500,000 in costs.
SC held that Schott India's volume-based discount scheme did not constitute anti-competitive behavior. The Court found no evidence of discriminatory pricing, exclusionary practices, or market foreclosure. The functional rebate and long-term supply agreement were deemed objectively justified. Critically, the Court emphasized that an effects-based harm analysis is essential under Section 4 of the Competition Act. The investigation was procedurally flawed due to denial of cross-examination, rendering the Competition Commission's original order invalid. The Appellate Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the complainant was ordered to pay Rs. 500,000 in costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
