The CCI held that dominance alone is insufficient to establish a violation under Section 4. The key takeaway is that actual or potential harm to competition must be demonstrated before abuse can be found.
CBDT has identified search, survey, and reassessment cases for compulsory scrutiny in FY 2026-27. The guidelines highlight the Department’s focus on verifying issues arising from such proceedings.
IBBI held that an Insolvency Professional cannot delay constitution of the Committee of Creditors based on settlement discussions or creditor reluctance. Failure to follow mandatory CIRP timelines resulted in a three-year suspension.
The address highlights how Aadhaar, UPI, eNPS, and other digital tools are transforming pension enrolment and service delivery. It emphasizes technology’s role in achieving broader retirement security coverage.
The SAT’s ruling in Alpesh Vasanji Furiya v. SEBI is a significant clarification of the relationship between securities enforcement and tax law in India. By holding that income tax paid on unlawful gains cannot be offset against SEBI-ordered disgorgement, the tribunal has maintained the purity and effectiveness of disgorgement as an equitable remedy — ensuring that tax compliance cannot be deployed as a device to dilute the amount recoverable by SEBI in enforcement proceedings.
ITAT Delhi quashed a ₹65 lakh penalty under Section 271D after finding that no assessment was made for the relevant year and no satisfaction was recorded for initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained in such circumstances.
CESTAT examined whether Bluetooth headsets should be treated as communication devices or ordinary headphones. It held that devices capable of transmitting and receiving voice and data in wireless networks fall under CTI 85176290.
The Orissa High Court considered a request for amendment of GST registration where business was conducted from a different location. The petitioner undertook to deposit arrear taxes, interest, late fees, and penalty before seeking amendment.
The Calcutta High Court examined whether its earlier ruling on diesel escalation reimbursement contained an apparent error. It held that no such error existed and dismissed the review petitions.
The Tribunal examined a service tax demand raised on the basis of DGARM data and financial statements. It held that reliance solely on such material could not sustain the extended limitation period, resulting in the demand and penalties being set aside.
