<?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>1986 (9) TMI 402 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168854</link>
    <description>The ginning and pressing factory was treated as part of the textile undertaking because the record showed functional and managerial integration: the cotton processed there was used in the mill, supervision and control were common, salaries were paid from the same account, and administrative and clerical staff were shared. Separate balance-sheet entries and separate provident fund schemes were insufficient to establish a distinct establishment. The takeover under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act was therefore upheld, and the wider question whether a separate establishment could still fall within the undertaking&#039;s property was left undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (9) TMI 402 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168854</link>
      <description>The ginning and pressing factory was treated as part of the textile undertaking because the record showed functional and managerial integration: the cotton processed there was used in the mill, supervision and control were common, salaries were paid from the same account, and administrative and clerical staff were shared. Separate balance-sheet entries and separate provident fund schemes were insufficient to establish a distinct establishment. The takeover under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act was therefore upheld, and the wider question whether a separate establishment could still fall within the undertaking&#039;s property was left undecided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>