Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
SC interprets Sections 29(1) and 29(1A) of the Competition Act, 2002, clarifying the discretionary powers of the Competition Commission. The Court distinguishes between the mandatory nature of "shall" in Section 29(1) and the discretionary "may" in Section 29(1A), emphasizing the Commission's expert discretion in determining whether to initiate a detailed investigation after issuing a show cause notice. The judgment reaffirms that the Commission retains flexibility in deciding the investigative process, rejecting a rigid two-phase mechanism. The review petition challenging the majority judgment's interpretation is ultimately allowed, with the Court providing critical clarification on the statutory provisions' scope and application.
SC interprets Sections 29(1) and 29(1A) of the Competition Act, 2002, clarifying the discretionary powers of the Competition Commission. The Court distinguishes between the mandatory nature of "shall" in Section 29(1) and the discretionary "may" in Section 29(1A), emphasizing the Commission's expert discretion in determining whether to initiate a detailed investigation after issuing a show cause notice. The judgment reaffirms that the Commission retains flexibility in deciding the investigative process, rejecting a rigid two-phase mechanism. The review petition challenging the majority judgment's interpretation is ultimately allowed, with the Court providing critical clarification on the statutory provisions' scope and application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
