Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
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.