<?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>1977 (7) TMI 15 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37912</link>
    <description>A business taken over as a running concern with employees retained on the same terms and without break in service attracts gratuity liability for the whole period of continuous service, not merely service rendered during the accounting year. The liability under the Kerala Industrial Employees&#039; Payment of Gratuity Act was treated as capable of being provided for on a present-value or actuarial basis even though payment would arise on a future contingency. The transferee, having ultimate control over the factories and having undertaken to engage the existing workmen without interruption, was regarded as the employer for gratuity purposes and thus responsible for the liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:58:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (7) TMI 15 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37912</link>
      <description>A business taken over as a running concern with employees retained on the same terms and without break in service attracts gratuity liability for the whole period of continuous service, not merely service rendered during the accounting year. The liability under the Kerala Industrial Employees&#039; Payment of Gratuity Act was treated as capable of being provided for on a present-value or actuarial basis even though payment would arise on a future contingency. The transferee, having ultimate control over the factories and having undertaken to engage the existing workmen without interruption, was regarded as the employer for gratuity purposes and thus responsible for the liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>