Author Details

Welfare measures means such services, facilities and amenities as may be established in or in the vicinity of undertakings to enable the persons employed in them to perform their work in healthy, congenial surroundings and to provide them with amenities conducive to good health and high morale. After the independence, the Government of India makes strict rules and regulations to safeguard the interest of the workers in the factories. The present article pertains to the welfare measures provided to the workers as per the provisions laid down in Chapter 5 (Section 42 to 50) of The Factories Act, 1948 for the benefit of employees of the factories. This article also tries to analyze the effectiveness of these welfare provisions. It is analytical and descriptive in nature and doctrinal in approach.

Keywords

Factories Act, Welfare Measures, Health, Security, Workers

Full Text

References

Randhir Kumar Singh, ‘Welfare Measures and its impact on Manpower Productivity’.

Section 2(m), ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 11, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 12, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 13, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 14, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 15, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 16, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 17, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 18, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 19, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 20, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 21, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

(1950) 1 FJR 1

Section 22, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 23, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 24, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 25, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 26, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 27, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 28, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 29, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 30, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 31, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 32, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

(1950) 2 All ER 582.

(1954) 1 KB 615.

Section 33, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 34, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 35, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

(1949) All ER 452.

Section 36, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 37, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 38, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 40, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 42, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 43, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 44, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 45, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 46, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Balkrishan v. K.J. Mishra, AIR 1979 Bom 198.

(2005) II L.L.J. 653 (Mad.).

(2005) II L.L.J. 684 (SC).

Section 47, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 48, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

Section 49, ‘The Factories Act’, (1948).

AIR 1952 All. 109.

A.C. Companies v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595.

(2002) II L.L.J. 474 (Del.).

The Theories of Justice and its Correlation with Law

Abstract Views :358 | PDF Views:0

Authors

Apoorva Neral ¹

Affiliations
1 Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (C.G), IN

Source

Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 4, No 2 (2013), Pagination: 151-160

Abstract

Administration of justice is one of the most essential and primary functions of a State. Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics. The terms most frequently used by lawyers in the praise or condemnation of law or its administration are the words 'just' and 'unjust' and very often they write as if the ideas of justice and morality were coextensive. To clear the confusion, there are various theories of Justice put forth by different jurists such as Aristotle, Dworkin, Rawls etc. This Article firstly deals with the pros and cons of the theories and concept of justice and also explains its relation with law. It is analytical and descriptive in nature and doctrinal in approach.

Keywords

Justice, State, Administration of Justice, Law, Theory

Full Text

References

H.L.A. HART, ‘The Concept of Law’, Oxford, The Clarendon Press, (1961), pp. 155-159.

JOHN RAWLS, ‘A Theory of Justice’, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2000), pp. 3-7.

KONOW, JAMES, ‘Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories’, Journal of Economic Literature 41, Vol. 4, p. 1188, (2003).

. V.D. MAHAJAN, ‘Jurisprudence & Legal Theory’, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 5th Ed., (2010), pp. 115-118.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice, accessed on 4th September, 2011 at 3:45 P.M.

H.L.A. HART, ‘The Concept of Law’, Oxford University Press, 2nd Ed., (2010), pp. 157-167.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice, accessed on 4th September, 2011 at 3:45 P.M.

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/pefranc/3-ts%20of%20justice.htm, accessed on 7th September, 2011 at 6:34 P.M.

In Political Liberalism, “a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties” replaces “the most extensive total system” of A Theory of Justice (see p. 291)

Rawls does not espouse egalitarianism, rather qualified it.

See D. Lyons, ‘The Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism’ (1965) D. Miller, pp.30-40.

On the relationship between rights and autonomy, See D RICHARDS (1981) 92 Ethics 3.

JOHN RAWLS, ‘A Theory of Justice’, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2000), pp. 11-17.

Published in 1974, it is said to be the “locus classicus of contemporary libertarian argument on behalf of a minimal state” [B. Fried (1995) 24 Philosophy and Public Affairs 226].

Ante, 148.

Post, 661.

Op. Cit., n. 3, p. ix.

Ibid, pp. 149-182.

It seems obvious to 19th century critiques of abstract individualism and most 20th century social science. Its principle method is “state of nature” theory, drawing substantive political conclusions from how abstractly conceived “rational” individuals, removed from any specific social context, would behave in imagined situations. See S. LUKES, ‘State of Nature’ in Essays in Social Theory’, (1977), Chap. 11.

Op. Cit., n. 3, p. 51. On moral side constraints see Ibid, pp. 28-35.

Ibid, p. 119.

Ibid, p. 153.

“Whether a distribution is just depends upon how it came about” (Ibid)

He is particularly critical of B. WILLIAMS’ well known article ‘The Idea of Equality’, Ibid in (eds.) P. LASLETT and W.G. RUNCIMAN, ‘Philosophy, Politics and Society’, (1962), p. 110.

Op. Cit., n. 3, p. 317.

Ibid, p. 333.

Ibid, pp. 333-334.

And has provoked a wide range of critical comment, e.g. J. PAUL, ‘Reading Nozick’ (1981), J. WOLFF, ‘Robert Nozick’ (1991), T. CAMPBELL, ‘Justice’ (2nd ed., 2001), Chap. 3.

Per C. FRIED, (1983) 1 (1) Soc. Phil. and Policy 45, 49.

Rawls’s method (the “original position” and “veil of ignorance”), ante, 525, is different, but the principles which emerge may be subject to similar criticisms.

Ante, 112. See further K.M. MCLURE, ‘Judging Rights’ (1996).

Ante, 118. A modern parallel is A. GEWIRTH, ‘Reason and Morality’ (1977).

Which he called “nonsense upon stilts”. A contemporary critic is M.A. GLENDON, ‘Rights Talk’, (1991).

T.D. CAMPBELL, ‘The Left and Rights’, (1983), pp. 92-102.

See H.L.A. HART, in (ed.) A. Ryan, ‘The Idea of Freedom’ (1979).

See R. DWORKIN, ‘Taking Rights Seriously’ (1978).

R. WASSERSTROM, (1964) 61 J Philosophy 628, 629.

BUCHANAN, ‘What’s So Special About Rights?’, (1984) 2 (1) Social Policy and Philosophy 61.

Op. Cit., n. 25, p. ix.

Ibid, p. 130.

Ibid, p. 199.

Op. Cit., n. 25, p. 232.

This is discussed post, 545.

Op. Cit., n. 25, p. 235.

J. WALDRON, ‘Theories of Rights’, (1984), p. 17.

Op. Cit., n. 25, p. 234.

Ibid, p.275.

D. LYONS, ‘Utility and Rights” in Nomos (1982), vol. xxiv, p. 139.

R. HARE, ‘Moral Thinking’, (1981).

M.D.A. FREEMAN, ‘Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence’, London Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., 7th ed., (2001), pp. 534-547.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas-moral-political/#Jus, accessed on 17th September, 2011 at 3:17 P.M.

http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/453/justice.htm, accessed on 17th September, 2011 at 4:40 P.M.

http://blog.mises.org/2917/cicero-on-justice-law-and-liberty/, accessed on 16th September, 2011 at 5:23 P.M.

http://www.aristotelophile.com/Books/Articles/pdf_6.pdf, accessed on 15th September, 2011 at 6:34 P.M

Piercing of Corporate Veil in Taxation Matters (India and International Transactions) with Reference to Direct Tax Codes

Abstract Views :1927 | PDF Views:0

Authors

Apoorva Neral ¹

Affiliations
1 Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (C.G), IN

Source

Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 4, No 3 (2013), Pagination: 380-391

Abstract

In the ultimate analysis, some human beings are the real beneficiaries of the corporate advantages, for while, by fiction of law, a corporation is a distinct entity yet in reality, it is an association of persons who are in fact the beneficiaries of the corporate property. Therefore, it may happen that the corporate personality of the company is used to commit frauds or improper or illegal acts like tax evasion. Thus, the concept of piercing or lifting the corporate veil holds significance. A corporate veil may be pierced either through statutory provisions or by judicial interpretation. Piercing the corporate veil in taxation matters is an outcome of judicial decisions. This Article firstly deals with the pros and cons of the concept of tax evasion and piercing the corporate veil. It pertains to situations in which piercing of corporate veil in taxation matters is considered valid and convincing. Then it goes on to emphasizing the notion, construction and legality of lifting the veil in India, United States and United Kingdom. It also stresses on the Direct Tax Codes and the scope of piercing the veil. It is analytical and descriptive in nature and doctrinal in approach.

Keywords

Corporate Veil, Direct Tax, Tax Evasion, Corporate Entity, Piercing

Full Text

References

[1895-99] All ER Rep 33 : 66 LJ Ch 35.

Ibid

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm, accessed on 3rd September, 2011 at 10:17 A.M.

For instance, the Court of Appeal in Adams v. IndustriesPlc [[1990] 2 W.L.R. 786, HL.], refused to lift the veil as against the defendant company on the ground that the right to use a corporate structure can be denied only in case of illegality and not immorality.

See, PALMER, ‘Company Law’, 2223 (1992). See also, C.I.T, Madras v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd., (1967) 63 ITR 609 (SC).

See, WILLIAM W. PARK, ‘Fiscal Jurisdiction and Accrual Basis Taxation: Lifting the Corporate Veil to Tax Foreign Company Profits’, 78 COLUM. L. REV. 1609 (1978).

Gallaghar v. Germania Brewing Company, [1893] 53 MINN. 214.

A.K. MAJUMDAR & DR. G.K. KAPOOR, ‘Taxmann’s Company Law and Practice’, Taxmann Publications (P.) Ltd., 16th ed., (July, 2011), p. 19.

See, ROBERT W. HAMILTON & JONATHAN R. MACEY, ‘Cases and Materials on Corporations Including Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies’, 9th ed., (2005), p. 261.

See, GOWER & DAVIS, ‘Principles of Mordern Company Law’, Sweet & Maxwell, 17th ed., p. 187.

See, Union of India v. Playworld Electronics, (1989) 3 SCC 181.

See, Young v. David Payne & Co., Ltd [1904] 2 Ch. D. 608.

See, Barber-Greene Americans Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (1960) 35 TC 365.

See, McDowell v. CTO, AIR 1986 SC 649.

See, C. H. TAN, ‘Piercing the Separate Personality of the Company: A Matter of Policy?’ [1999] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 531 at 536.

[2005] HKCA 316 at [95].

See, C H TAN SC, ‘Walter Woon on Company Law’, Sweet and Maxwell Asia, Singapore, 3rd ed, (2005), pp 55ff.

[1995] HKCA 604.

[1935] All ER 259 (H.L.).

See, W. T. Ramsay v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [[1982] AC 300] was a significant departure from the Westminster principle. In the instant case, the House of Lords considered a tax avoidance scheme which consisted of a series or a combination of transactions each of which was individually genuine but all of which as a whole resulted in tax avoidance. The House laid the principle that the fiscal consequences of a preordained series of transactions, intended to operate as such, are generally to be ascertained by considering the result of the series as a whole. It is not to be ascertained by dissecting the scheme and considering each individual transaction separately.

See, CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [(1986) 67 ITR 11] the Supreme Court held that the avoidance of tax liability is not prohibited. Legislative injunction in taxation statutes may not, except on peril of penalty, be violated, but it may lawfully be circumvented.

See, Bank of Chettinad Ltd v. CIT, [ (1940) 8 ITR 522 PC]

(2003) 263 ITR 707 (SC).

(1985) 62 ALR 545; (1985) HCA 83 (Three Doctors Case).

See, Hollylock v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation, (1971) HCA 43; (1971 125 CLR 647, at p 657).

See, ROBERT B. THOMSON, ‘Piercing the corporate veil: an empirical study’, 76 cornel L. Rev. 1036 (1991)

(1958) UKPCHCA 1; (1958) 98 CLR 1, at p 8.

See, AULT, HUGH J., ‘Corporate Intergration Tax Treaties and Dividsion and the International Tax Base: Principles & Practice’, (1992) 47 Tax Law Review 565.

See, Commissioner of Taxation v. Consolidated Press Holdings, (2001) 207 CLR 235.

http://www.businessstandard. com/india/storypage.php?autono=299844, accessed on 4th September, 2011 at 10:55 A.M.

Juggilal v. CIT, (1969) 2 SCC 376 : AIR 1970 SC 529.

(2003) 114 Comp. Cas. 82 Del

AIR 1927 Bom 371

AIR 1967 SC 819.

AIR 1955 SC 74 : (1955) 1 SCR 876.

AIR 1963 Cal 629.

E.B.M. Co. Ltd. v. Dominion Bank, [1937] 3 All ER 555 PC.

See O. Kahn Freund, Company Law Reform, 9 Mod LR 235.

(G.R. No. 167560, September 17, 2008)

1991 36 ITD 369 Del.

IT Appeal No. 3225 (Delhi) of 1987 dated 27-9-1988.

Vodafone International Holdings B v. Union of India and Anr., (2010) 329 ITR 126 (Bom).

[2011] 199 TAXMAN 70 (Kar).

http://indiacorplaw.blogspot.com/2011/04/lifting-corporate-veilfor- tax-purposes.html, accessed on 6th September, 2011 at 2:56 P.M.

Income Tax Act, 1961

(1986) 59 Comp.Cas. 548: 1986 (1) ComLJ 91: AIR 1986 SC 1370

1969 (2) ComLJ 188: AIR 1969 SC 932

[1989] 65 Comp. Cas. 196 (Del)

2002 (82) ECC 288, 2002 (145) ELT 526 Tri Del

Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd, (18th August, 2004).

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/m-j-antony- %60liftingcorporate-veil%60/160711/, accessed on 6th September, 2011 at 1:36 P.M.

In Re. Young v. David Payne & Co. Ltd., [1904] 2 Ch. D. 608

(1899) 4 TC 41.

1957] 1 W.L.R. 464

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil, accessed on 5th Sptember, 2011 at 4:55 P.M.

(1977) 7 A.T.R. 519.

[1976] 1 W.L.R. 852.

[1955] 1 W.L.R. 352

(1984) 9 A.C.L.R. 102

GOWER, ‘Principles of Modern Company Law’ (3rd ed., 1969), p. 216.

Ibid. at p. 860.

[1982] Q.B. 84

(1986) A.T.C. 4145.

[1983] F.S.R. 54.

(1985) A.T.C. 4765.

(1977) 140 C.L.R. 314.

PETER ZIEGLER & LYNN GALLAGHER, ‘Lifting the corporate veil in the pursuit of justice. Journal of Business Law’, 1990.

WT Ramsay Ltd v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1982] A.C. 300 (HL)

Furniss v Dawson, (1984) 55 TC 324.

(1984) 55 TC 324 at 331.

Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832.

IRC v. Burmah Oil Co Ltd., (1981) 54 TC 200.

Ibid at p. 215.

MALCOLM GAMMIE, ‘Sham and reality: the taxation of composite transactions’, British Tax Review, 2006.

293 U.S. 465 (1935).

Nelson v. Commissioner, 281 F.2d 1 (1960).

See, Discussion Paper on Direct Tax Code, August 2010, Chapter-II, A-9

“Control and management signifies contolling and directive power, the head and brain as it is sometimes called and also means de facto control and management”;, See, DR. GIRISH AHUJA AND DR. RAVI GUPTA, ‘Direct Taxes and Practices’, Bharat Law House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, p. 45 , 2011; Also see, CIT v. Nandlal Gandalal, (1960) 40 ITR 1 SC

See, ARNOLD BRIAN J., ‘Tax Treaties & Tax avoidance’, (2004) 58 BIFD 244.

Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

Author Details

Neral, Apoorva

Welfare Measures under the Factories Act: A Critical Appraisal

Authors

Source

Abstract

Keywords

Full Text

References

The Theories of Justice and its Correlation with Law

Authors

Source

Abstract

Keywords

Full Text

References

Piercing of Corporate Veil in Taxation Matters (India and International Transactions) with Reference to Direct Tax Codes

Authors

Source

Abstract

Keywords

Full Text

References

Service Tax Liability on Technical Knowhow:A Contentious Issue

Authors

Source

Abstract

Full Text

Concept of Novelty

Authors

Source

Abstract

Full Text

Username
Password
Remember me