Author: kkslawoffices

The Supreme Court (SC) set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court, allowing loss claimed, due to confiscation of silver bars as business loss, under section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The SC observed that although the assessee had a legitimate business of dealing in silver he indulged in smuggling of silver which was not the business. Therefore, the loss due to confiscation of smuggled goods cannot be claimed as a business loss.

The Competition & Markets Authority (CMA), UK, has denied the proposed acquisition of Activision-Blizzard by Microsoft Inc. as it raised competitive concerns in cloud gaming market in the UK. Microsoft committed to offer royalty-free access to CoD & other popular titles to certain cloud gaming providers & allowing consumers to stream titles on other cloud gaming providers. However, CMA noted that the remedy applies only to a defined set of Activision games, which can be streamed only in a defined set of cloud gaming services; thus requiring some degree of regulatory oversight by CMA. By contrast, preventing the merger would effectively allow market forces to continue to operate and develop cloud gaming without any regulatory intervention.

The Uttrakhand High Court (UHC), rejecting the petition seeking to quash the proceedings on the grounds of amicable settlement, held that an offence punishable under Section 295A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) cannot be compounded under Section 320 IPC. The UHC observed that “if this act of derogating the other’s religious sentiments is permitted to be continue, it rather acts as a parasite, which eats the society itself and creates an uncalled-for animosity resulting into public disorder and unrest….”

The Delhi High Court (DHC) has held that there is no compulsory statutory requirement of having three members at Competition Commission of India (CCI) to be a valid quorum to carry out adjudication process under the Competition Act, 2002 (Act). The DHC noted that the term “proceeding” under Section 15 of the Act includes adjudicatory/judicial powers of CCI and merely because of there is a vacancy in the CCI, it cannot be considered as lacking jurisdiction to adjudicate on pending proceedings. Furthermore, DHC held that Section 22 of the Act, which requires a quorum of three members for conducting meetings of CCI, is for administrative action and have no nexus with the adjudicatory process.

Amazon’s appeal challenging the decision of the European Commission (EC) to allow parallel antitrust investigations into Amazon’s “Buy Box” by both the European Union (EU) and Italy was dismissed by the EU Court of Justice. The EC had allowed the Italian Competition Authority to commence an independent investigation into Buy Box, where Amazon promotes certain sellers of a particular product on its platform, while the EC also decided to probe the same issue.

Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. & Singapore Airlines Limited (SIA) seek approval from the Competition Commission of India for the merger of Tata SIA Airlines Ltd., a joint venture of Tata Sons & SIA, operating the airline Vistara, with Tata Sons’ subsidiary, Air India Ltd. Horizontal overlaps identified, by the parties, are: (i) domestic & international air transport services in India; (ii) air cargo services in India; (iii) charter flight services in India.

While deciding a bail application, of a accused of rape and sexual offence against a minor, the Allahabad High Court (AHC) observed that if the prosecutrix in the matter completely denies the version of the allegation of rape in the FIR and becomes hostile during the trial, she cannot remain entitled to the compensation provided by the State for victims of rape. The AHC held that “In my opinion, if the victim has become hostile and does not support the prosecution case at all, it is appropriate to recover the amount if paid to the victim.”

General Authority for Competition (GAC), the anti-trust authority of Saudi Arabia, imposed a fine of 140 million Saudi Riyal (SR) on 14 cement manufacturing companies for indulging in a conspiracy to hike cement prices in the country. Further, each of the cement producers involved in the conspiracy have been charged a fine of 10 million SR for violating provisions of Saudi Arabia’s Competition Regulations, 2004

The Kerala High Court (KHC), allowing the criminal revision petition, sets aside the order of a Sessions Court, discharging an accused from the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) due to lack of documentary evidence. The KHC observed that “For the purpose of bringing home the guilt of an accused, under section 304 IPC, based upon drunken driving and the resulting knowledge of the consequences, it is not essential, in every case, that there should be documentary evidence to prove the fact of drunkenness.