https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100270 The Supreme Court held that inter-connected merger steps were adequately notified where the relevant agreements and their commercial linkages were placed on record and assessed in substance, so the transaction could not be treated as a complete non-notification. Section 43A could not be used as an omnibus penalty for alleged under-characterisation once a notice had been filed, reviewed and approved; any complaint of omission or false statement had to satisfy the specific ingredients of Sections 44 and 45. The Court further held that the post-one-year directions reopening the approved combination, keeping approval in abeyance and requiring a fresh Form II filing were beyond jurisdiction, lacked statutory authority, and in any event breached natural justice. en-us Sat, 30 May 2026 08:29:40 +0530 Sat, 30 May 2026 08:29:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100270 The Supreme Court held that inter-connected merger steps were adequately notified where the relevant agreements and their commercial linkages were placed on record and assessed in substance, so the transaction could not be treated as a complete non-notification. Section 43A could not be used as an omnibus penalty for alleged under-characterisation once a notice had been filed, reviewed and approved; any complaint of omission or false statement had to satisfy the specific ingredients of Sections 44 and 45. The Court further held that the post-one-year directions reopening the approved combination, keeping approval in abeyance and requiring a fresh Form II filing were beyond jurisdiction, lacked statutory authority, and in any event breached natural justice. Highlights Law of Competition Sat, 30 May 2026 08:29:40 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100270