Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accounting treatment

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2021

TROPHY GOLD INVESTMENTS LTD v. MODERN CITY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 69
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2161/2014

The Summons for expert accounting evidence and the attached broad discovery was dismissed because the petitioner failed to justify expert evidence on the substance of the disputes, the discovery application was not properly formulated or supported and the respondent had filed a discovery affirmation which is normally conclusive; only the impairment provision arguably might require expert examination but petitioner did not discharge the burden to show necessity before ordering expert evidence or the sweeping discovery sought.
15 Sept 2017

YUNG WOON KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG YUI KWAI AND OTHERS

Citation

YUNG WOON KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG YUI KWAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2154/2009

The court dismissed the pre‑trial valuation applications because a valuation would not resolve the core disputes without full disclosure of alleged wrongdoing, would be costly and was not sufficiently likely to facilitate settlement; the court refused leave to amend because the proposed allegations were, on the material, time‑barred or did not show unfair prejudice attributable to the respondents (and prior financial statements approved by the petitioner undermined the claim that it would be unfair for directors to refuse to alter accounting treatment).
7 Nov 2012

NICE CHEER INVESTMENT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

NICE CHEER INVESTMENT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV135/2011

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was granted because the three formulated questions raise issues of great general or public importance that ought to be considered by the Court of Final Appeal; costs of the leave application to be in the cause of the appeal.
10 Nov 2006

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS (N.T.) LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS (N.T.) LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/2006

The appellant failed to discharge the statutory burden of proving the property was a capital asset because the Board, after considering intention at acquisition and the badges of trade, found the appellants evidence limited and unconvincing; that conclusion was open on the facts and the appeal was therefore dismissed, upholding the Commissioners profits tax assessment under s.14(1).
28 Sept 1982

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. LO AND LO, A FIRM

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. LO AND LO, A FIRM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/1982

The Court held the $770,000 constituted an expense 'incurred' within s.16(1) because the firm had assumed a liability under its employment terms; the claimed figure was accepted as sufficiently accurate on the material before the court, and therefore the deduction was allowable; appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

TROPHY GOLD INVESTMENTS LTD v. MODERN CITY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

YUNG WOON KWAI AND ANOTHER v. YUNG YUI KWAI AND OTHERS

NICE CHEER INVESTMENT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS (N.T.) LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. LO AND LO, A FIRM