Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Real property gains tax

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2025

WONG YUNG CHUN Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

KA-14-1-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-14-1-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the appellant is a non-citizen his acquisition occurred only after State Authority approval and registration on 26 March 2019 (S.433B NLC); the RPGT notice dated 19.02.2020 was founded on the wrong acquisition date and an associated void valuation; SCIT erred as its decision upheld an assessment based on primary facts admitted to be wrong and inconsistent valuations by the revenue necessitate judicial intervention; the Court therefore substituted a reassessment using acquisition date 26 March 2019 and market value RM885,719 for the 1/10 share.
13 Jun 2025

Lim Hian Yu Sdn Bhd Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

PA-14-3-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-14-3-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SCIT misdirected itself by confining paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to gifts; paragraph 9(a) expressly covers transactions not at arm's length and therefore the acquisition price for the shares should be determined by market value under paragraph 9 where the rights issue in a controlled company is not arm's length; the Assessments issued under paragraph 4 were therefore set aside.
5 Nov 2024

Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri KIND ACTION (M) SDN BHD AMICUS CURIE BAR MALAYSIA

Citation

01(f)-18-05/2024(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-18-05/2024(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court upheld the Court of Appeal: RPGTA assessments and certificates of clearance that became final and conclusive under s20 RPGTA cannot be left in place while the Revenue later issues ITA assessments for the same transactions without first discharging or revoking the RPGTA assessments; doing so results in illegality and effectively double taxation. The Revenue is estopped by legitimate expectation arising from repeated RPGTA clearances; judicial review was appropriate and the High Court erred in treating SCIT as the sole forum here.
1 Feb 2023

MB WORLD GROUP BERHAD Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

JA-25-46-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-46-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory appeal route; there was no clear illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety by the respondent and the appropriate remedy was appeal to the Special Commissioners under s18 RPGT.
1 Sept 2022

IMPIAN SELOKA SDN. BHD. PEGUAM NEGARA

Citation

WA-25-259-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-259-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Minister's omission to respond to the applicant's request constituted a reviewable omission under O53 r2(4) ROC; the applicant was adversely affected by that omission and the leave application was not frivolous, therefore leave for judicial review is granted; issues as to merits (whether ss135 or 127(3A) permit setting aside the assessments) are reserved for substantive hearing.
9 May 2022

Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) LIM CHYE THIAM (PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA LIM SOO CHOOI) 2. ) LIM SOO THAM (PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA LIM SOO CHOOI)

Citation

PA-21NCvC-13-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-21NCvC-13-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff satisfied the procedural prerequisites for summary judgment and produced evidence that notices were served (including defendants' admission in an appeal), the defendants failed to show any bona fide triable defence on affidavit, statutory provisions treat the certified outstanding tax as enforceable and bar challenges to the quantum in court; claims against persons described as administrators were competent because the statutory definition of executor/wasi includes administrators; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and granted with costs.
12 Jan 2022

KIND ACTION (M) SDN BHD Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

JA-25-40-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-40-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the Respondent acted within statutory powers under the Income Tax Act; the negligence exception under s91(3) justified late assessments, the issues raised were fact‑based and within the province of the Special Commissioners (SCIT), there was no bad faith or breach of natural justice, and no exceptional circumstances existed to bypass the statutory appeal route.
12 Jan 2022

JA-25-40-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

JA-25-40-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-40-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the judicial review because the Respondent acted within statutory powers: s.91(3) applied due to the Applicant's negligence so the Disputed Notices were not time-barred; RPGT clearance did not bar reassessment under the Income Tax Act; absence of detailed reasons did not amount to a breach warranting judicial intervention; the correct forum for contested factual issues and penalty assessments is the SCIT and the Applicant must exhaust that alternative remedy; and the penalty imposed was within the Respondent's discretion under s.113(2).
5 Jan 2022

WA-25-288-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

WA-25-288-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-288-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court exercised its discretionary power to grant an interim stay because special circumstances existed: the Respondent’s decision imposed a large tax and penalty liability (RM5,415,159.63) that risked causing irreparable financial harm and possible insolvency, the Applicant had made prior disclosures and RPGT payments, there was documented systemic delay in tax refunds by the IRB, the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo, and nothing in the ITA expressly ousted the court’s jurisdiction to grant a stay pending appeal under Rules of Court and inherent powers.
14 Sept 2021

Dato' Khor Wooi Chen METRO SUPPLIES MARKETING SDN BHD

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2369-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-2369-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Tripartite Agreement did not impose liability on D2 for RPGT or for the RM1,000,000 difference where the respondent sold the property to a third party before the five-year repurchase period; the respondent's premature sale frustrated the TA and limited D2's liabilities. D2 remained liable under the TA as guarantor/indemnifier for rental arrears only for the period the lease subsisted (limited to 15 months), and the High Court orders were set aside except for awards on insurance and rental loss of RM600,000; interest at 5% was ma…