<?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>Provident fund protection in liquidation excludes employee dues from the estate and blocks waterfall distribution.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99233</link>
    <description>Provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund dues are excluded from the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) and cannot be brought into the waterfall under Section 53. The absence of a separately maintained fund does not remove that statutory protection, and such dues must be provided for from the corporate debtor&#039;s available funds. The Tribunal therefore found the claim could not be treated as a distribution claim and remitted the matter for fresh examination in accordance with law. It also held that provident fund dues relatable to a separate legal entity could not be fastened on the corporate debtor, as distinct entities carry separate liabilities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Provident fund protection in liquidation excludes employee dues from the estate and blocks waterfall distribution.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99233</link>
      <description>Provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund dues are excluded from the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) and cannot be brought into the waterfall under Section 53. The absence of a separately maintained fund does not remove that statutory protection, and such dues must be provided for from the corporate debtor&#039;s available funds. The Tribunal therefore found the claim could not be treated as a distribution claim and remitted the matter for fresh examination in accordance with law. It also held that provident fund dues relatable to a separate legal entity could not be fastened on the corporate debtor, as distinct entities carry separate liabilities.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:29:33 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>