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...
Bid rigging/collusive bidding in a public tender for supply of machines was alleged to contravene Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. Direct proof of cartelisation being rare, the finding was sustained on circumstantial evidence showing coordination, including use of the same IP address for bid submission, close telephonic association reflected in CDRs, and facilitation of bid security by one participant for others, demonstrating lack of independent competition; mere reduction in bid price did not rebut collusion. Once an agreement falling within Section 3(3) was established, the presumption of AAEC applied and was not rebutted. The contravention and penalty under Section 27(a) were upheld and the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
Bid rigging/collusive bidding in a public tender for supply of machines was alleged to contravene Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. Direct proof of cartelisation being rare, the finding was sustained on circumstantial evidence showing coordination, including use of the same IP address for bid submission, close telephonic association reflected in CDRs, and facilitation of bid security by one participant for others, demonstrating lack of independent competition; mere reduction in bid price did not rebut collusion. Once an agreement falling within Section 3(3) was established, the presumption of AAEC applied and was not rebutted. The contravention and penalty under Section 27(a) were upheld and the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
