<?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>2007 (4) TMI 712 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183038</link>
    <description>Separate concerns may be treated as one establishment where the objective material shows unity of ownership, management, supervision, finance, labour and functional integrity, together with common purpose and geographical proximity. Applying those tests, the two factories were found to be under members of the same family, located close to each other, and commercially interdependent because one unit&#039;s product served as the other&#039;s raw material. Separate registrations under other laws did not displace the real operational integration, and the earlier view that functional integrity was lacking was unsustainable. The units were therefore treated as one establishment and brought within coverage under Section 7A of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds &amp; Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 16:40:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429713" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 712 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183038</link>
      <description>Separate concerns may be treated as one establishment where the objective material shows unity of ownership, management, supervision, finance, labour and functional integrity, together with common purpose and geographical proximity. Applying those tests, the two factories were found to be under members of the same family, located close to each other, and commercially interdependent because one unit&#039;s product served as the other&#039;s raw material. Separate registrations under other laws did not displace the real operational integration, and the earlier view that functional integrity was lacking was unsustainable. The units were therefore treated as one establishment and brought within coverage under Section 7A of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds &amp; Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>