Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • STSB V KPHDN

    Uploaded by

    NKM
    17 views16 pages

    Original Title

    Stsb v Kphdn

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    17 views16 pages

    STSB V KPHDN

    Uploaded by

    NKM

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 16
    DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN RAYUAN DAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS) Dalam perkara suaty Keputusan Responden ‘seperti yang dinyatakan melalui surat bertarikh 45.2017, Dan Dalam pertara nots-notis taksiran_ tahun {aksran 2009 dan 2010beriarkh 4.5.2017 dan nolis-nots taksran tambahan tahun taksiran 2011 dan 2018 bertarkh 4.5.2017; Dan Dalam perkara suatu permohoran untuk antara lain, svatu Pecintah Cettioar Dan Dalam perkara Aturan §3. Keedan-Kaedah Maicamah 2012 Antara Saujana Triangle Sdn Bhd +» Pemohon Dan Kotua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri + Responden Grounds of Decision Azizah Nawawi, J Application a This is an application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings eesking the following prayers: () An Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the respondent dated 4.5.2017 in the form of notices of assessment for the years of assessment ("YAs") 2009 and 2010 and notices of additional assessment for YAs 2011 and 2013; (i) Addeclaration that the buliding costs incurred by the applicant ‘are deductible under section 33 (1) of the Income Tax Act 1967; (ii) A declaration that the gains recsived by the applicant from the disposal ofits lots of land are not subject to income tax; (iv) A declaration that notices of assessment dated 4.5.2017 for the YAs 2009 and 2010 and notices of additional assessment for YAs 2011 are time barred and thus null and void; and (V) A declaration that the penalty imposed on the applicant Under section 113(2) of the Income Tax Act 1967 for the YAs 2) (31 a 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2013 is without any legal and factual basis and must be set aside; ‘The grounds of the application are: (i) That the respondent's decision was illegal, void, unlawful andlor in excess of authority; (ii) That the respondent's decision is unreasonable; and (ii) That the decision of the respondent has been made without regard to the decision of the superior courts, The respondent, Director General of Iniand Revenue (the "DGIR") ‘was invited by this court to submit on the legal issue of whether leave should be granted, Both the learned Federal Counsel from the ‘Attorney General Chambers and the legal counsel for DGIR objected to this application for leave. The only ground of objection is that there is an alterative remedy of appeal under section 98 of the Income Tax Act 1967 (the ‘ITA 1967"), Having considered the application and the submission of the parties, this cout has dismissed the applicant's application for leave with ooet, ‘The Salient Facts 5) vl 18] ‘The applicant was incorporated in Malaysia with its principle activities are property development and land investment holding. (On 6.12.2016, the DGIR leoued its tax audit finding letter etating that () That the applicant had underreported its income for the construction projects; and (i) That the gains arising from the disposal of the applicant's parcels of land should be subjected to income tax. Between 10.1.2017 to 174.2017, there was an exchange of communications between the applicant and the OGIR. (On 45.2017, the DGIR issued the notices of assessment with penalty for the YAs 2009 and 2010 and the notice of additional assessment with penalty for YAs 2011 and 2013, which are as follows: () YA2008 —_-RIMS0,191,012.91 (i) YA2010: —-RMT,217,558.43 (i), YA2011; —-RIM@,747,722.76 (v) YA2013 ——-RM14,611,931.16 31 Being aggrieved by the decision of the DGIR, the applicant has fled this application. ‘The Findings of the Court (10) i (12) (13) ‘The core issue is whether this application for leave should be

    You might also like