Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CCI dismissed allegations of anti-competitive practices against a financial institution. The Commission found no merit in claims of arbitrary interest rate changes, noting that rates are determined by multiple parameters like CIBIL score and risk assessment. Regarding back interest charges, the Commission viewed the dispute as a contractual matter outside competition law's scope. The allegation of collusion with valuers to undervalue properties under SARFAESI proceedings was rejected due to lack of evidentiary support. Ultimately, the Commission concluded no prima facie case of Section 3 or 4 violations existed and directed closure of the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.
CCI dismissed allegations of anti-competitive practices against a financial institution. The Commission found no merit in claims of arbitrary interest rate changes, noting that rates are determined by multiple parameters like CIBIL score and risk assessment. Regarding back interest charges, the Commission viewed the dispute as a contractual matter outside competition law's scope. The allegation of collusion with valuers to undervalue properties under SARFAESI proceedings was rejected due to lack of evidentiary support. Ultimately, the Commission concluded no prima facie case of Section 3 or 4 violations existed and directed closure of the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
