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" ?
NCLAT dismissed the appellant's challenge to CCI's order closing an abuse of dominant position complaint concerning FCM injections. It held that, as FCM was a patented drug of Respondent No. 2 at the relevant time, the Patent Act prevails over the Competition Act, and CCI lacks jurisdiction to examine alleged anti-competitive conduct directly arising from exercise of patent rights. Relying on Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, the Tribunal emphasized that reasonable conditions imposed to protect patent rights are exempt from competition scrutiny. Finding no prima facie infringement of competition law and upholding CCI's view, the appeal was rejected.
NCLAT dismissed the appellant's challenge to CCI's order closing an abuse of dominant position complaint concerning FCM injections. It held that, as FCM was a patented drug of Respondent No. 2 at the relevant time, the Patent Act prevails over the Competition Act, and CCI lacks jurisdiction to examine alleged anti-competitive conduct directly arising from exercise of patent rights. Relying on Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, the Tribunal emphasized that reasonable conditions imposed to protect patent rights are exempt from competition scrutiny. Finding no prima facie infringement of competition law and upholding CCI's view, the appeal was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.