Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
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...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC dismissed writ petitions challenging CCI's jurisdiction over anti-competitive conduct allegations in telecom sector. Court held both Competition Act and TRAI Act are special legislation in respective fields with potential overlapping jurisdiction. CCI has exclusive authority to investigate misuse of dominant position under Section 4 of Competition Act, while TRAI handles license condition violations and regulatory compliance. When allegations involve dominant position abuse in relevant market, CCI maintains jurisdiction regardless of concurrent TRAI regulatory issues. Court ruled CCI competent to determine its own jurisdiction and declined to interfere with Section 26 proceedings at preliminary stage. Both sectoral regulators operate in distinct fields without jurisdictional conflict, with CCI serving as specialized regulator for anti-competitive practices investigation.
HC dismissed writ petitions challenging CCI's jurisdiction over anti-competitive conduct allegations in telecom sector. Court held both Competition Act and TRAI Act are special legislation in respective fields with potential overlapping jurisdiction. CCI has exclusive authority to investigate misuse of dominant position under Section 4 of Competition Act, while TRAI handles license condition violations and regulatory compliance. When allegations involve dominant position abuse in relevant market, CCI maintains jurisdiction regardless of concurrent TRAI regulatory issues. Court ruled CCI competent to determine its own jurisdiction and declined to interfere with Section 26 proceedings at preliminary stage. Both sectoral regulators operate in distinct fields without jurisdictional conflict, with CCI serving as specialized regulator for anti-competitive practices investigation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
