What constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations

What constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations

The study in this project paper is quiet specific whereby the whole discussion revolves around section 4 Income Tax Act 1967 which defines income. Perusing the cases involving income tax, it is obvious that most of the cases revolve around issue of what constitutes income. This is due to the inadequ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Anuradha, Narasamuloo
Format: Thesis
Language:eng
eng
Published: 2013
Subjects:
K Law (General)
Online Access:https://etd.uum.edu.my/5690/1/s810049_01.pdf
https://etd.uum.edu.my/5690/2/s810049_02.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my-uum-etd.5690
record_format uketd_dc
institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection UUM ETD
language eng
eng
advisor Hassan, Mumtaj
topic K Law (General)
spellingShingle K Law (General)
Anuradha, Narasamuloo
What constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations
description The study in this project paper is quiet specific whereby the whole discussion revolves around section 4 Income Tax Act 1967 which defines income. Perusing the cases involving income tax, it is obvious that most of the cases revolve around issue of what constitutes income. This is due to the inadequacies of section 4 Income Tax Act 1967 in effectively defining income. The objectives of this project paper is to discuss the current position involving this section and the definitions judicially elaborated by courts to help fill in the lacuna created by the inadequacies this section. It also involves comparative study with other jurisdiction namely with India and United Kingdom and recommendations to solve the problem namely amendments to the section in the form of adding provisos and illustrations. As the study in this project paper is about what constitutes income in context of Income Tax Act 1967, major portion of the paper involves discussion on the issues which frequently goes to court for the much needed guide as to what forms income. This will greatly help individuals or organizations namely taxpayers looking for a clue of what section 4 Income Tax Act 1967 trying to classify. It will also give the readers an overview of what is income in revenue law.
format Thesis
qualification_name masters
qualification_level Master's degree
author Anuradha, Narasamuloo
author_facet Anuradha, Narasamuloo
author_sort Anuradha, Narasamuloo
title What constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations
title_short What constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations
title_full What constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations
title_fullStr What constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations
title_full_unstemmed What constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations
title_sort what constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations
granting_institution Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department Ghazali Shafie Graduate School of Government
publishDate 2013
url https://etd.uum.edu.my/5690/1/s810049_01.pdf
https://etd.uum.edu.my/5690/2/s810049_02.pdf
_version_ 1747827968967704576
spelling my-uum-etd.56902022-04-10T02:43:25Z What constitutes income in the context of section 4 income tax act 1967 and judicial interpretations 2013 Anuradha, Narasamuloo Hassan, Mumtaj Ghazali Shafie Graduate School of Government Ghazali Shafie Graduate School of Government K Law (General) The study in this project paper is quiet specific whereby the whole discussion revolves around section 4 Income Tax Act 1967 which defines income. Perusing the cases involving income tax, it is obvious that most of the cases revolve around issue of what constitutes income. This is due to the inadequacies of section 4 Income Tax Act 1967 in effectively defining income. The objectives of this project paper is to discuss the current position involving this section and the definitions judicially elaborated by courts to help fill in the lacuna created by the inadequacies this section. It also involves comparative study with other jurisdiction namely with India and United Kingdom and recommendations to solve the problem namely amendments to the section in the form of adding provisos and illustrations. As the study in this project paper is about what constitutes income in context of Income Tax Act 1967, major portion of the paper involves discussion on the issues which frequently goes to court for the much needed guide as to what forms income. This will greatly help individuals or organizations namely taxpayers looking for a clue of what section 4 Income Tax Act 1967 trying to classify. It will also give the readers an overview of what is income in revenue law. 2013 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/5690/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/5690/1/s810049_01.pdf text eng public https://etd.uum.edu.my/5690/2/s810049_02.pdf text eng public masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia 1. ALB Co Sdn. Bhd. v Director General of Inland Revenue (1979) 1 MLJ 1. 2. Alf Properties Sdn. Bhd.v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (2005)3 CLJ 936. 3. American Leaf Blending Co Sdn. Bhd. v Director-General of Inland Revenue (1979) 1 MLJ 1. 4. Anwarul, Yaqin, Legal Research and Writing, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Law Journal, 2007. 5. Barr, Crombie & Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 26 TC 406. 6. Bernhard v CIR 13 TC 723. 7. Bentley, Duncan.Taxpayers’ Rights: Theory, Origin and Implementation. Netherlands : Kluver Law International, 2007. 8. TSB v KPHDN (1996) 2 BLJ 403. 9. BSC Footwear Ltd v Ridgeway 47 TC 495. 10. Bukit Yew Sdn. Bhd. v Director General of Inland Revenue (1987) 2 CLJ 134. 11. Cir v British Samson Aero Engine Ltd (1938) 2 KB 482. 12. CIT Bengal v Shaw Wallace & Co (1932) 6 ITC 178. 13. Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Fleming & Co(Machinery Ltd. 33 TC 57. 14. Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Glasgow and South Western Railway Co. (1887) AC 315. 15. Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Newcastle Breweries Ltd. 12 TC 927. 16. Compensation In Connection With Business Receipts - An Analysis of The Malaysia Experience (2002) 2 MLJ xix. 17. Cooney, John, The International Handbook of Corporate and Personal Taxes (7th Edition). London: Nexia International, 2003. 18. Deeny and Ors v Gooda Walker Ltd. and Ors 67 TC 458. 96 19. DGIR v LCW (1975) 1 MLJ 250. 20. Dickson v Abel 45 TC 353. 21. Duple Motor Bodies Ltd v Ostime 39 TC 537. 22. E v Comptroller of Inland Revenue (1970) 2 MLJ 117. 23. Ecker, Thomas, Lang Michael & Lejeune Ine. The future of indirect taxation-Recent trends in VAT and GST systems around the world. Neatherlands: Kluver Law International BV, 2002. 24. F. Housing Sdn. Bhd. v Director- General of Inland Revenue (1976) 2 MLJ 183. 25. Fatt, Choong Kwai, Malaysian Taxation Principles and Practice. Malaysia: InfoWorld, 2012. 26. FCT v Cooke and Sherden (1980) 10 ATR 696. 27. GDPDFSB v Director General of Inland Revenue (1996) 1 BLJ 7. 28. Glenboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue 12 TC 427. 29. Green v Gliksten and Son Ltd 14 TC 364. 30. Harry Ferguson (Motors) v IRC 33 TC 15. 31. Heather v P. E. Consulting Group Ltd. 48 T.C.293. 32. Hudson’s Bay Co Ltd. v Stevens (1905) 5 TC 437. 33. I. Investment Ltd v Comptroller General of Inland Revenue (1975) 2 MLJ 208. 34. In Higgs v Olivier 33 TC 136. 35. Investments Ltd. v DGIR (1975) 2 MLJ 208. 36. John Smith and Son v Moore 12 TC 266. 37. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v James Armend Menezes (2001) LNS 1 183. 38. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Pan Century Edible Oils Sdn Bhd (2002) 3 CLJ 784. 39. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Penang Realty Sdn. Bhd & Others (2006) 2 CLJ 835. 40. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Johor (2009) 5 CLJ 518. 41. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Promet (Langkawi) Resorts Sdn. Bhd (2011) 6 CLJ 829. 42. Leeming v Jones 15 TC 333. 43. Lower Perak Co-operative Housing Society Bhd. v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (1994) 2 MLJ 713. 44. Mamor Sdn. Bhd. v Director General of Inland Revenue (1981) 1 MLJ 117. 45. Melville, Alan, Taxation –Finance Act 2008 (14th Edition). England: FT Prentice Hall, 2008. 46. Murray, Rebecca, Tax Avoidance (1st Edition). London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2012. 47. NYF Realty Sdn. Bhd. v Comptroller of Inland Revenue (1985) 1 MTC 234. 48. NYF Realty Sdn. Bhd. v DGIR (1974) 1 MLJ 182. 49. Paget v Commissioners of Inland Revenue 21 TC 677. 50. Philip v West 38 TC 203. 51. Pool v Guardian Trust Co. Ltd. 8 TC 167. 52. PUSB v Director General of Inland Revenue (1995) 4 BLJ 281. 53. Rae v Lazard Investment Co. Ltd. 41 TC 1. 54. Ryan (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) v Asia Mill Ltd. 32 TC 275. 55. Shadford (HM Inspector of Taxes) v H. Fairweather 43 TC 291. 56. Sharkey (Inspector of Taxes) v Wernher (1955) 2 All ER 493. 57. Shipwright, Adrian & Keeling, Elizabeth, Textbook on Revenue Law. London: Blackstone Press Limited, 1997. 58. Simmons v IRC (1980) 1 WLR 1196 59. Suasana Indah Sdn. Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (2006) 2 CLJ 165. 60. Subramaniam, Arjunan, Malaysian Taxation System 2002 Self Assessment. Malaysia: Sweet & Maxwell,2002. 61. Sun Newspapers Ltd v F.C. of T (1938) 16 CLR 337. 62. Taylor v Good 49 TC 227. 63. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Livingston [1927] 11 TC 538. 64. The Seaham Harbour Dock Company v Crook 16 TC 333. 65. Thew v South west Africa Co. Ltd 9 TC 141. 66. Thuronyi, Victor, Comparative Tax Law. Netherlands: Kluver Law International, 2003. 67. Van Den Berghs v Clark (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) 19 TC 390. 68. Whitehouse, Chris, Revenue Law Principles and Practice (9th Edition). England: Trolley Lexis Nexis, 2001. 69. Yii Chee Ming v Teo Ah Khing & Anor (2007) 4 CLJ 79. 70. Yong Mun Fook v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri (2001)1 LNS 501.

Similar Items