<?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>1960 (2) TMI 60 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192457</link>
    <description>Functional integration, rather than common ownership alone, determines whether two business activities form one industrial unit for bonus computation. The Supreme Court noted that the test is whether the activities are so integrated that one cannot conveniently and reasonably exist without the other. Although the press and the publishing venture were under common ownership, the absence of a common capital fund, pooled profits, or a combined labour force, together with separate accounts and separate cashiers, showed that they remained distinct concerns. The losses of the publishing business could therefore not be set off against the profits of the press for calculating bonus, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2017 18:27:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (2) TMI 60 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192457</link>
      <description>Functional integration, rather than common ownership alone, determines whether two business activities form one industrial unit for bonus computation. The Supreme Court noted that the test is whether the activities are so integrated that one cannot conveniently and reasonably exist without the other. Although the press and the publishing venture were under common ownership, the absence of a common capital fund, pooled profits, or a combined labour force, together with separate accounts and separate cashiers, showed that they remained distinct concerns. The losses of the publishing business could therefore not be set off against the profits of the press for calculating bonus, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>