Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Bid-rigging was proved by direct and circumstantial email evidence showing coordinated bidding, allocation of shares, tender distribution, price discussions, bid withdrawal directions and continued receipt of cartel communications without dissociation; contravention under Sections 3(1) and 3(3)(a) to (d) was therefore affirmed. Once cartel conduct was established, the presumption of appreciable adverse effect on competition applied and was not rebutted; reliance on Rajasthan Cylinder was distinguished. The partner's liability under Section 48 was upheld, and penalty based on average income at the same rate as the firm was held proper. Challenges based on vacancy in composition and denial of cross-examination failed, and both appeals were dismissed.
Bid-rigging was proved by direct and circumstantial email evidence showing coordinated bidding, allocation of shares, tender distribution, price discussions, bid withdrawal directions and continued receipt of cartel communications without dissociation; contravention under Sections 3(1) and 3(3)(a) to (d) was therefore affirmed. Once cartel conduct was established, the presumption of appreciable adverse effect on competition applied and was not rebutted; reliance on Rajasthan Cylinder was distinguished. The partner's liability under Section 48 was upheld, and penalty based on average income at the same rate as the firm was held proper. Challenges based on vacancy in composition and denial of cross-examination failed, and both appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.