<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (4) TMI 977 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358866</link>
    <description>Interconnected market purchases, demerger and amalgamation were treated as one composite combination under the Competition Act because the substance of the arrangement, not isolated steps, determined the notification obligation. The target-based exemption could not be applied by severing a contemporaneous step that formed part of the overall transaction, so notice under section 6(2) was required. Penalty under section 43A was characterised as a civil consequence for breach of a statutory duty, and non-notification attracted penalty without proof of mala fides or mens rea. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside and the penalty order restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:57:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 977 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358866</link>
      <description>Interconnected market purchases, demerger and amalgamation were treated as one composite combination under the Competition Act because the substance of the arrangement, not isolated steps, determined the notification obligation. The target-based exemption could not be applied by severing a contemporaneous step that formed part of the overall transaction, so notice under section 6(2) was required. Penalty under section 43A was characterised as a civil consequence for breach of a statutory duty, and non-notification attracted penalty without proof of mala fides or mens rea. The Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside and the penalty order restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>