The appellant was found guilty of bid rigging and cartelization ...

Appeal Dismissed: Lenient Penalty for Bid Rigging Upheld; Tribunal Confirms 1% Turnover Fine for Tender Cartelization.

October 18, 2024

Case Laws Companies Law AT

The appellant was found guilty of bid rigging and cartelization in a tender process initiated by SBIIMS, contravening Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d), and 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The issue pertained to whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was proportionate to the offense, considering the criteria laid down in Excel Crop Care Ltd. vs CCI. The CCI differentiated the present case from Excel Crop Care, stating that the appellants were engaged in the supply of printed advertising/marketing materials, including signages, which constituted different varieties of the same product rather than multiple products. The CCI imposed a lenient penalty of 1% of the average relevant turnover for three financial years, despite the Act allowing up to 10%. The order was upheld by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, attaining finality. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The appellant was found guilty of bid rigging and cartelization ...

Appeal Dismissed: Lenient Penalty for Bid Rigging Upheld; Tribunal Confirms 1% Turnover Fine for Tender Cartelization.

October 18, 2024

Case Laws Companies Law AT

You may also like:

Section 271(1)(c) penalty was held invalid due to improper issuance of notice, as no proceedings were pending when the notice was issued on 19.12.2019. Section 271A...

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dealt with a case involving cartelization and bid-rigging in tenders for soil sample testing by the Department of...

The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

Levy of penalties under various sections - The Appellate Tribunal, in a consolidated order, addressed several appeals concerning penalties imposed under various sections...

Bid-rigging cartel involving Toyfort, Austere Systems, and Fimo Info Solutions in soil testing tenders floated by Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Department contravened...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A/153C - The tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that every non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) gives a separate cause of action for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b)....

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(vii) - bad debt claim in respect of identified debts - The Tribunal found no flaw in the information provided by the assessee regarding the bad...

ITAT upheld penalties imposed under s.271(1)(c) against appellant firm for multiple violations. Unexplained cash credits in partners' capital accounts violated...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances in the quantum assessment order - whether any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars proved? - Tribunal directs...

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for two types of additions: (1) the addition made u/s 50C on the difference between stamp duty value and sale...

Customs authority confiscated imported old and used worn clothing for failure to comply with licensing requirements. The Tribunal upheld confiscation u/s 111(d) of...

The Appellate Tribunal found the Appellant Company guilty of contravening u/s 9(1)(a) of FERA 1973 by making payments to a person outside India without RBI permission....

The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer failed to...

Quick Updates: