Income Tax : Form 187 allows appeal against refusal or withdrawal of recognition of provident, gratuity, or superannuation funds within 60 days...
Income Tax : Form 186 application process, eligibility, documents, filing rules, and recognition of provident funds under Income-tax provisions...
Income Tax : Form 185 sets format for maintaining provident fund subscriber accounts, including contributions, interest, and balances, with ann...
Corporate Law : International workers from non-SSA countries cannot withdraw PF on exit. The article explains why age 58 remains the key condition...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill, 2026 updates Schedule XI to remove outdated contribution and investment limits. The changes bring income-tax rul...
Corporate Law : EPFO introduces easier PF transfer with revamped Form 13 and bulk UAN generation for employers (without immediate Aadhaar)....
Corporate Law : EPFO adds 15 banks for employer contributions, expanding to 32 banks. The move aims to enhance efficiency and reduce transactional...
Corporate Law : EPFO has streamlined the PF transfer process, eliminating employer approval for most claims, aiming to reduce turnaround time and ...
Corporate Law : EPFO is revolutionizing service delivery by introducing auto-mode settlement for education, marriage, and housing claims, reducing...
Corporate Law : EPFO grants a five-month extension to employers for uploading wage details regarding pension on higher wages. Learn about the late...
Income Tax : The issue centered on employees’ PF contributions and statutory due dates post-Checkmate ruling. The ITAT held that detailed ver...
Income Tax : The High Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its limited powers under Section 254(2) by recalling a final order on merits. Once ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal remanded the MAT issue after noting lack of factual verification on whether reserve withdrawals were credited to the ...
Income Tax : SEO Description: The Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be dismissed solely on limitation without examining reasons for delay. Th...
Income Tax : Tribunal relied on Supreme Court’s Checkmate ruling to uphold disallowance of delayed employees’ PF/ESI contribution under Sec...
Corporate Law : EPFO's campaign (Nov 2025–Apr 2026) allows employers to enroll employees missed from 2017 to 2025. Pay only employer's share and...
Corporate Law : EPFO introduces a revamped Electronic Challan-cum-Return (ECR) from September 2025 with system-based validations, revised filing o...
Corporate Law : Starting August 1, 2025, UAN allotment and activation will be mandatory through the UMANG app using Aadhaar-based Face Authenticat...
Corporate Law : EPFO introduces easier PF transfer with revamped Form 13 and bulk UAN generation for employers (without immediate Aadhaar)....
Corporate Law : EPFO introduces UAN allotment and activation through UMANG app using Face Authentication (FAT). Simplifies access to EPFO services...
In accordance with amended para 69 (under para 83 of Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952), an International Worker is allowed to withdraw the full amount standing to his credit in the fund: • on retirement from service in the establishment at any time after attaining the age of 58 years;
EPFO is reportedly planning to provide portable numbers to salaried individuals. The move might stem the trend of premature withdrawal which most people prefer over getting their accounts transferred while switching jobs.
Government Thursday slashed interest rate on deposits in Employees Provident Fund from 9.5 percent to 8.25 percent for 2011-12 affecting over 4.7 crore subscribers. This cut was proposed by the Finance Ministry and a notification was issued by the Labour Ministry, official sources said. The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) had provided 9.5 percent interest rate to its subscribers for 2010-11 after it found Rs 1,731 crore surplus in its books of account.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent appearing in-person, we are of the view that the judgment and order of the High Court does not require any interference, particularly when the issue raised in this Appeal has already been decided by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1932 of 1982, wherein it was categorically held that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a public servant
RPFC Vs. The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors.(SC) – .The question which falls for consideration before this Court in this case is whether the employer of an establishment which is an ‘exempted establishment’ under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’ ) is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an ‘exempted establishment’. The question was raised by the respondent before the High Court and both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have recorded a finding in favour of the respondent and held that the respondent being an ‘exempted establishment’ cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section 14(B) of the Act.
In exercise of powers conferred under Section 6A of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Central Government formulated the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The Scheme provides pensionary benefits to the members upon superannuation/retirement. In addition, in case of death of member/member pensioner, the pensionary benefits are also given to widow and children/orphan/ nominee/dependent parents as per the provisions contained in the Scheme.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested a Provident Fund Inspector of Guntur for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.7000/- from the complainant. The complainant, a Manager in Guntur based private firm has alleged that the Provident Fund Inspector, Guntur visited their firm on 24.10.11 and found all the registers & records in order. However, she demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for not creating any problem and initially accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.3000/- as part payment from him.
L. N. Gadodia & Sons & ANR. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Supreme Court of India)- When two establishments are run by the same family under a common management with common work force and with financial integrity, they are expected to be treated as branches of one establishment for the purposes of the Provident Fund Act, the Supreme Court ruled last week.
The Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is applicable to all employees working in such establishments which are employing 20 or more workers and is falling under any of the Schedule Heads or class of establishments notified by the Central Government and getting wages up to Rs. 6500/- per month without any reference of being skilled or unskilled. The Act is uniformly applicable all over India except in the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
Retirement fund manager EPFO will seek the legal opinion on implementation of the order of the MP High Court throughout the country under which employers and employees will be required to increase their contributions to the provident fund. ‘We will seek legal opinion and also the opinion of Ministry of Law and Justice Ministry, through Labour Ministry, on the MP High Court order throughout the country,’ Central Provident Fund Commissioner Samirendra Chatterjee said.
