Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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.