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...
Relevant product market was identified as use of Crystalline Durability Admixture in heavy infrastructure projects and geographic market as India; the Maharashtra-only market pleaded by the appellant was rejected for lack of basis. The respondent authority (MSRDC) was held not to be dominant in the relevant market after assessment of market share and project data, and therefore no abuse of dominance under the Competition Act was found; IRC accreditation as an eligibility criterion did not amount to unfair discrimination. No cartelisation or agreement restricting supply was established, no prima facie case required DG investigation, and the appeal was dismissed.
Relevant product market was identified as use of Crystalline Durability Admixture in heavy infrastructure projects and geographic market as India; the Maharashtra-only market pleaded by the appellant was rejected for lack of basis. The respondent authority (MSRDC) was held not to be dominant in the relevant market after assessment of market share and project data, and therefore no abuse of dominance under the Competition Act was found; IRC accreditation as an eligibility criterion did not amount to unfair discrimination. No cartelisation or agreement restricting supply was established, no prima facie case required DG investigation, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
