<?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>2017 (4) TMI 1110 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342140</link>
    <description>Charitable or public-utility institutions do not lose the protection of section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 merely because they generate incidental surplus. The Court examined the trust&#039;s objects, audited financial material, and prior findings on charitable activity, and held that the applicant trust remained an institution established not for purposes of profit. Employees of such institutions fall outside the Act&#039;s application, so the complaints were not maintainable. The Court also noted prior reply to the show-cause notice and suppression of material facts, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process. The complaints were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:56:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1110 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342140</link>
      <description>Charitable or public-utility institutions do not lose the protection of section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 merely because they generate incidental surplus. The Court examined the trust&#039;s objects, audited financial material, and prior findings on charitable activity, and held that the applicant trust remained an institution established not for purposes of profit. Employees of such institutions fall outside the Act&#039;s application, so the complaints were not maintainable. The Court also noted prior reply to the show-cause notice and suppression of material facts, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process. The complaints were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>