Malaysia Case Law

20 Sept 2022

MULTI SQUARE SDN BHD Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri

Citation

WA-14-11-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-14-11-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the SCIT that the management fees are not deductible under s 33(1) ITA because the MSAs lacked substance and were sham in purpose and therefore the fees were not wholly and exclusively incurred in producing income; however the Court set aside the penalties under s 113(2) because SCIT and DGIR failed to make/find requisite mala fide or intentional wrongdoing to justify the penalty.

• Deductibility of expenses
• Management fees
• Income tax penalty
• Section 33(1) income tax act 1967
• Section 113(2) income tax act 1967
• Sham transactions

9 Jul 2021

STAMFORD COLLEGE BHD (No. Syarikat: 194977-A) 1. SERI STAMFORD COLLEGE SDN BHD (dahulu dikenali sebagai Stamford College (PJ) Sdn Bhd) (No. Syarikat: 184286-A) 2. STAMFORD COLLEGE (MALACCA) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 260914-A)

Citation

WA-22NCC-387-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCC-387-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SCB failed to discharge its burden to prove a continuous running account or contemporaneous documentary basis for treating historical entries as a single blended debt; absent that proof the individual annual debts are time-barred under s.6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953, except for specific management and royalty entries of September 2012 evidenced by a journal voucher and schedule; the counterclaims lacked reliable documentary proof and were dismissed.

• Running account
• Management fees
• Royalty
• Time-bar/limitation
• Counterclaim
• Netting off

SINWARA SDN BHD V. MARIS HOUSING SDN BHD & ANOR

Citation

SINWARA SDN BHD V. MARIS HOUSING SDN BHD & ANOR

Court

Malaysian court

The Court disqualified counsel (Mr. Lee Seng Wai) for having an interest in a lot and thus a potential pecuniary interest impairing objective advocacy; on the substantive issue the Court held Clause 17(b) must be given its literal meaning such that until strata title is issued only the vendor (First Defendant) may validly increase management fees, therefore the notice issued by the Second Defendant on 27/9/1996 (prior to strata title issued on 9/6/2000) was invalid for lack of authority; accordingly the Plaintiff's primary prayers were dismissed and costs were awarded against the Plaintiff.

• Management fees
• Strata title
• Interpretation of contract clause
• Advocate conflict of interest
• Declaration