Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Allegations that the exchange granted preferential market access...
Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation directed.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Allegations that the exchange granted preferential market access via co-location facilities and secondary servers were examined; the competition regulator found no prima facie abuse of dominant position because the informant failed to establish overt anti competitive harm or denial of market access to investors, and evidence submitted by the exchange and sectoral expert reports did not support preferential access claims. The regulator permissibly relied on sectoral regulator findings and expert reports in forming its view and therefore declined to direct an investigation. The appellate review upheld that approach and dismissed the challenge to the regulator's decision.
Allegations that the exchange granted preferential market access via co-location facilities and secondary servers were examined; the competition regulator found no prima facie abuse of dominant position because the informant failed to establish overt anti competitive harm or denial of market access to investors, and evidence submitted by the exchange and sectoral expert reports did not support preferential access claims. The regulator permissibly relied on sectoral regulator findings and expert reports in forming its view and therefore declined to direct an investigation. The appellate review upheld that approach and dismissed the challenge to the regulator's decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.