<?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 (3) TMI 755 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183060</link>
    <description>Multiple units may be treated as one establishment under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act where the evidence shows unity of ownership, management and control, common finance and labour, and functional integrality. Separate incorporation or registration does not prevent clubbing if the factual record shows common business activity, interdependence, money transactions and occupation of the same premises. On the facts, common family control and operational unity across the partnership firm and the companies justified coverage as a single establishment, and the challenge to that treatment failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 May 2016 10:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429818" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 755 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183060</link>
      <description>Multiple units may be treated as one establishment under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act where the evidence shows unity of ownership, management and control, common finance and labour, and functional integrality. Separate incorporation or registration does not prevent clubbing if the factual record shows common business activity, interdependence, money transactions and occupation of the same premises. On the facts, common family control and operational unity across the partnership firm and the companies justified coverage as a single establishment, and the challenge to that treatment failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>