<?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>2025 (7) TMI 999 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774931</link>
    <description>Under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, separate incorporation and distinct registrations are not conclusive where the cumulative facts show unity of ownership, management, finance, administration and functional integrality. The test also considers common workforce, transferability of employees and geographical proximity, viewed holistically in a welfare statute context. On the facts described, contiguous premises, shared contact details, website, e-mail, security, administrative set-up and family control supported clubbing the concerns as one establishment, and infancy protection was denied on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:19:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 999 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774931</link>
      <description>Under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, separate incorporation and distinct registrations are not conclusive where the cumulative facts show unity of ownership, management, finance, administration and functional integrality. The test also considers common workforce, transferability of employees and geographical proximity, viewed holistically in a welfare statute context. On the facts described, contiguous premises, shared contact details, website, e-mail, security, administrative set-up and family control supported clubbing the concerns as one establishment, and infancy protection was denied on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>