Income Tax Act 1947

“dit in April 2008, the Plaintiff came to the conclusion that the 1st Defendant had indeed used a tax avoidance arrangement, and wrongly claimed the Tax Refunds. The Plaintiff then invoked s 33 of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) and purported to issue notices of additional assessment (“Additional A”

“Article 25 of the Convention is incorporated into domestic legislation through s 105D of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ITA”), which states:”

“t (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (“Companies Act”) on the ground that it was unable to pay its debts. The Defendant sought a stay of the application on the basis that it intended to object or appeal under the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“Income Tax Act”) against the tax assessments giving rise to the underlying debt.”

“This is an appeal under s 81(2) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) against the Income Tax Board of Review’s decision (“the Board”) in Income Tax Appeal Nos 19-23 of 2013, regarding the interpretation of s 14(1)(a) of the Act on the”

“Application (“the Further Arguments Application”). The further arguments sought to be made related to: (a) public interest privilege under s 126(2) of the EA, (b) official secrecy under s 6(3) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) (“ITA”), and (c) legal professional privilege. The two affidavits are from: (a) Mr”

“The respondent is a solicitor who made false declarations of his income over a period of time to evade tax. He pleaded guilty to and was convicted of two offences under s 96(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2004 Rev Ed; 2008 Rev Ed) (“ITA”). The Law Society of Singapore (“Law Society”) convened a Disciplinary Trib”

“Section 10(1)(g) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (the “Act”) provides for the obligation to pay tax on any “gains or profits of an income nature” not specifically included. Mr Ong Sim Ho appeared on behalf of the appellants a”

“yers and the 51 implicated companies. The Request was made pursuant to Art 25(1) of the Convention. Article 25 of the Convention, which is incorporated into our domestic legislation via s 105D of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the ITA”), reads as follows:”

“p 224, 2008 Rev Ed). More recently, a solicitor was struck off in Law Society of Singapore v Ong Cheong Wei [2018] 3 SLR 937 (“Ong Cheong Wei”) for evading taxes, thus committing an offence under the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2004 Rev Ed). Most noteworthy for present purposes is Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee Yean”

“The issue before us is whether the Shareholder Bonds constitute “capital employed in acquiring the income” of the Taxpayer such that the interest paid on them is deductible under s 14(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ITA”). The Taxpayer argues that the interest expense was deductible because the Sha”

“, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) that the respondent suffer such punishment as is provided under s 83(1) of the LPA. The application is brought on the basis of the respondent’s conviction under s 37J(2) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“ITA”) for providing the Comptroller of Income Tax (“CIT”) with false information”

“dit in April 2008, the Comptroller came to the conclusion that the Appellant had indeed used a tax avoidance arrangement, and wrongly claimed the Tax Refunds. The Comptroller then invoked s 33 of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) and purported to issue notices of additional assessment. This was challenged by th”

“e period between 13 March 2015 and 1 December 2015, which were stated to relate to correspondence with the Income Tax Board of Review, the preparation of a Notice of Appeal under section 79(1) of the Income Tax Act, discussions with Justicius Law Corporation on a potential application for judicial review and drafting o”

“On the first issue, the Appellant’s case was built firstly on the fact that the PTA – unlike the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ITA”) and the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A, 2005 Rev Ed) (“GSTA”) – did not contain any provision which expressly placed on the party seeking a review of the”

“This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate in [2018] SGMC 48 (“GD”). The appellant was convicted after trial in relation to two offences under s 94A(3) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) (“ITA”) for failing, without reasonable excuse, to file income tax returns for more than two years after the”

“ismissed by the Board on 16 April 2019 and it now appeals against that decision before this court. It is not disputed that a balancing charge is deemed income chargeable with tax under s 10(4) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The only exception is where s 24(1) of the Act applies. Section 24(1)”

“ess similar to that enacted in other tax legislation, such as s 23 of the Property Tax Act (Cap 254, 2005 Rev Ed), s 50(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A, 2005 Rev Ed) and s 78(1) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed). That submission is, with respect, hopeless. Article 12 of the Constitution does n”

“Lim Chor Pee concerned the effect of compounding an offence under the Income Tax Act (Cap 141, 1970 Rev Ed). Koh Thiam Huat concerned the effect of composition of offences under the RTA. However, in my view, whether a compounded offence can be taken to be an admission of guilt is a m”

“(i) First, evaded income tax. As the diverted cash payments resulted in OLM underpaying its taxes, the liquidators considered that OLM would be liable to enforcement action under s 96A of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) for serious fraudulent tax evasion and made to pay the mandatory penalty of four times the”

“The Appellant then claimed deduction of the Cost-Sharing Payments pursuant to s 14D(1)(d) read together with s 14D(3) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) (“ITA”), which provided:”

“6. The Comptroller relies on s 33(1) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed; Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“The Act”) as the basis for the levy of the assessed tax on Dr Wee. Counsel for Dr Wee, Mr Lau Kah Hee, submitted that the Comptroller had failed to sati”

“oard that whether an income is taxable must be determined based on the strict wording of the taxing statute. Thus, for the $1,350,000 to be taxable, it must fall within the ambit of s 10(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ITA”), which specifies what gains or profits from employment would be taxable. T”

“n this basis that the plaintiffs submitted that such arrangement or practice was prohibited by and/or breached the laws in Malaysia in particular ss 3, 75A, 78 to 82, 113, 114, 119(A), and 140 of the Income Tax Act 1967 (No 47 of 1967) (M’sia) (“ITA”). In particular, the plaintiffs relied upon s 114(1) of the ITA which”

“Criminal Law] — [Statutory offences] — [Income Tax Act; Criminal Procedure And Sentencing] — [Sentencing] — [Benchmark sentences”

“ccept composition for a variety of reasons and it should not be assumed that they are all admitting guilt. In Re Lim Chor Pee, the respondent lawyer had compounded an offence of tax evasion under the Income Tax Act (Cap 141, 1970 Rev Ed). This compounded offence was taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Committe”

“SPRING Singapore was a statutory board under the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Singapore. The 8-year Section 13H Tax Incentive was an incentive under the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) that provided tax exemption for income from approved funds.”

“the Income Tax Board of Review, the same standard ought to apply to appeals from the VRB. This is because both types of appeal deal with “any question of law or of mixed law and fact” (s 81(2) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ITA”); s 35(3) of the PTA).”

“t solicitor has been convicted of a criminal offence involving dishonesty that implies a defect in character rendering her unfit for the profession. This might include a tax evasion offence under the Income Tax Act 1947 (2020 Rev Ed) (as in Ong Cheong Wei); theft or related offences (as in Law Society of Singapore v Ch”

“n the sentencing framework in Tan Song Cheng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2021] 5 SLR 789 (“the Tan Song Cheng Framework” and “Tan Song Cheng”) respectively) for offences under s 96 of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the ITA”). This statement was premised on the Prosecution’s submissions on appea”

“Section 31(1) of the Income Tax Act 1947 (2020 Rev Ed) provides that the income of a trust shall be deemed to be the income of the settlor until the beneficiary attains 21 years of age:”

“The Income Tax Act”

“This is an appeal by Singapore Cement Manufacturing Pte Ltd (“the appellant”) for accelerated capital allowance under s 19A of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ITA”). Its claim, pertaining to a cement silo constructed in 2013 (“the Silo”), was rejected by the Comptroller of Income Tax (“the Comptroller”), an”

“The issue there was the appropriate standard of review over the discretion exercised by the Comptroller of Income Tax under s 33(1) of the Income Tax Act to disregard or vary a tax arrangement. Given that was the scope of the Court of Appeal’s observations, it may be asked, with respect, whether those observations are”

“nder Indian law, specifically under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 (India) (“the Benami Act”), the BMA, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (India) (“the PMLA”), the Income Tax Act 1961 (India) (“the Income Tax Act”), the Customs Act 1962 (India) (“the Customs Act”) and the Foreign Exc”

“ly 2022 (“ASOF”), the following are undisputed between the parties. In the Years of Assessment (“YAs”) 2011, 2012 and 2013, the appellant made certain claims for capital allowances under s 19A of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) (the “ITA”) for capital expenditure in respect of two runways (“Runway”), various”

“at Changi Airport (collectively, the “RTA”), which are essential to its business and purposefully designed to accommodate the complex demands of modern aviation, qualify as “plant” under s 19A of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) (the “ITA”). This would allow it to write down capital expenditure incurred on the”

“The Existing Notes were issued as a Qualifying Debt Security (“QDS”) under the Income Tax Act 1947 (2020 Rev Ed) (“ITA”) and were secured by PT Modernland and other subsidiaries within the Group. The significance of the Existing Notes being a QDS is that any interest, discount income, prepayment f”

“xpenditure on rent would likely not have been deductible as a business expense as it was not “wholly and exclusively” incurred for the production of income: see ss 14(1), 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act 1947 (2020 Rev Ed); NE v Comptroller of Income Tax [2006] SGHC 199 at [10] (the purpose of the expenditur”