archive-sg.com » SG » S » SINGAPORELAW.SG

Total: 820

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Sample article1 building contstruction
    the appellant to sell When asked whether if the appellant had wanted to retain the flats for rental it would have made more sense to choose the better flats AW1 replied No it does not because the rental difference between an apartment with a better than poorer view is very small a couple of hundred dollars at most Since Darmadi did not specify whether he wanted to retain the apartments with the best views and left the discretion to me I was of the view that we should sell off the most expensive flats in order to make a bigger profit for the company AW1 denied a suggestion that the eight flats were not retained for long term investment but were let out pending the time they could fetch better prices He insisted that his instructions were not to sell the eight flats at all He went on to say The profits at that time were not very great from this development Darmadi was at that time making a lot of money in Indonesia and he was not interested in making a few thousand dollars here and there In fact the profits he made from this development he never draw at all He instead pumped more money into the company AW1 admitted that neither the appellant nor its directors had pasted any corporate resolution to retain the eight flats or to sell them He admitted that the appellant had used a sales brochure in the marketing of the Highpoint flats He admitted that he understood the directorsà â â reports before he signed them and when asked whether the statements therein were accurate statements of the appellantà â â s intention and activities at that time AW1 said the directorsà â â reports could not set out every intention of the appellant and that ideally and theoretically a directorsà â â report should have been more comprehensive AW1 also said that the expression à â Ëoefor investment purposesà â â meant to let out and earn a rental income for an unspecified period of time and in this case Darmadi had wanted to keep the flats forever 6 Before the Board counsel for the appellant contended that the surplus on the sale of the six flats was a capital accretion on the ground that the appellantà â â s intention from the start was to develop some flats for sale and to retain some flats for investment and that the appellant was carrying on two activities 1 the principal activity of property development for sale which came to an end in 1973 and 2 a subsidiary activity of letting out flats It was contended that the appellantà â â s intention was borne out by the following facts a the appellant had little external borrowing and therefore was under no financial pressure to sell b the appellant did not have any trading activity from 1973 to 1980 and even though many subsales of the other flats were transacted during this period c the categorical statements consistently made to the Controller of Housing that the eight flats were being retained as investment long before any tax ramifications arose d the appellant had furnished the flats at considerable cost e the flats were consistently treated as à â Ëoefixed assetsà â â in the audited accounts of the appellant since 1974 and taxed as such 7 The following cases were cited by counsel for the appellant to the Board CIR v Reinhold 34 TC 389 Bradshaw v Blunder 36 TC 397 Harvey v Caulcott 33 TC 159 West v Phillips 38 TC 203 Seaward v Varty 40 TC 523 International Investments v Controller General of Inland Revenue 1975 2 MLJ 208 1979 1MLJ 4 8 Counsel for the Comptroller contended that the surplus arising from the sale of the six flats was a trading receipt on the ground that the appellant was carrying on business of property development that property development meant property development for sale and that the Highpoint flats were constructed in the course of such business She contended that such a conclusion was supported by the following facts a the appellant by a letter dated 4 January 1971 informed the Comptroller that the business conducted by the appellant was property development b each of the directorsà â â reports from 1971 to 1974 stated that the development and construction of luxury apartments for sale was either its principal activity or sole activity c there was no corporate resolution to retain the eight flats as investment d during the construction of the flats no distinction was made in the appellantà â â s accounts between those units to be sold and those to be retained e the eight flats were builderà â â s remainders as they could not be sold on account of their poor location or alternatively the appellantà â â s intention was to sell them at a later but more favourable opportunity f the classification of the eight flats as à â Ëoefixed assetsà â â in the appellantà â â s balance sheets as from 1974 was not conclusive against the Comptroller and was selfserving g the letting of the flats for six years before sale was irrelevant in the case of a property developer and did not change their character as trading stock h the Comptroller had always treated the rents as part of trading receipts of property development without any objection from the appellant 9 Counsel also contended that the onus of proof was on the appellant to show that the profits arising from the sale of the flats were profits from the sale of investments and that such onus was greater on a company than on an individual 10 The following cases were cited by counsel for the Comptroller to the Board Harvey v Caulcott 33 TC 159 Granville Building Co v Oxby 35 TC 245 James Hobson Sons v Newall 37 TC 609 Shadford v H Fairweather Co 43 TC 291 Bowie v Reg Dunn Builders 49 TC 469 Gray Gillitt v Tiley 26 TC 80 Turner v Last 42 TC 517 Oliver v Farnsworth 37 TC 51 WM Robb v Page 47 TC 465 Orchard Parks v Pogson 1964 42 TC 442 Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon Co v CIR 12 TC 720 11 After receiving written submissions from both counsel on the cases cited by each of them the Board delivered its written judgment on 8 April 1985 The Board found that the appellant was carrying on the business of property development for sale and that the Highpoint flats were constructed for sale in the course of such business The grounds on which the Board supported its finding were a the appellant had been incorporated solely for the purpose of purchasing the property at Mount Elizabeth and developing the flats thereon in question b the absence of any resolution regarding the retention of the flats in question c Darmadi had intended to retain the eight flats until such time as they could fetch a better price the grounds for this finding being that i AW1 had said that the profits from the development were not very great and that Darmadi was making a lot of money in Indonesia and was not interested in making a few thousand dollars here and there and ii otherwise Darmadi would have purchased the eight flats in the same way as he had purchased the two penthouses d the appellantà â â s acceptance of the Comptrollerà â â s treatment of its rental income as trading profits and all the other evidence showed that the treatment by the appellant of the eight flats as fixed assets from 1974 onwards and the retention of and letting out of the flats for six years did not indicate the true nature of their retention e all the circumstances surrounding the development of the Highpoint flats 12 The Board was of the view that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proving that the profits in question arose from the sale of an investment and not from trading stock Accordingly the Board dismissed the appeal 13 The appellant now appeals against the decision of the Board on the ground that the Board was wrong in law and in fact in holding that the six retained flats were trading stock and that the surplus derived on their disposal was part of the trading profits of the appellant Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Boardà â â s finding was made without any or adequate evidence to support it or if there was evidence the finding was an inference from primary facts and as such an appellate court could in an appropriate case draw a contrary inference and he urged me to do so It was said that the primary facts relied on which the Board were equally capable of supporting a finding of and the Board should have found a dual or composite intention on the part of the appellant He referred to the locus classicus on this point of law ie the judgment of Lord Radcliffe in Edwards v Bairstow Harrison 1955 36 TC 207 and also the judgment of Lord Wilberforce in Simmons v IRC 1982 1 MLJ 112 Counsel also said that the Board had also failed to deal specifically with other relevant facts before them which were favourable to the appellantà â â s case 14 It was contended that the Board failed to give any or inadequate consideration or insufficient weight to or draw the correct inferences from the facts set out in para 6 of this judgment and from the following facts a the expression à â ËoeProperty Developmentà â â used to describe the appellantà â â s business in its letter dated 14 April 1971 was neutral as the purpose of development could be for sale or for investment or for both likewise the expression à â Ëoethe construction of a block of luxury flatsà â â as used in the directorsà â â report for the financial year 1970 b also the use of the adjective à â Ëoeprincipalà â â to qualify the activity of the appellant in the directorsà â â report for the financial years 1971 to 1973 implied or was not inconsistent with the appellant carrying on a subsidiary activity of holding property for investment c that it was neither realistic nor practicable for the appellant to specifically distinguish in its audited accounts those flats for sale and those for investment until the flats had been completed whereupon the appellant had aptly classified them as fixed assets and that the expression à â ËoeDevelopment Projectà â â a neutral expression was also an apt description of the development at that stage d that the classification of the eight flats as fixed assets in the balance sheets from 1974 onwards negatived any adverse inference that could be drawn from the absence of any corporate resolution regarding their retention e that the appellantà â â s omission to object to the assessments of rental income as part of its trading receipts might have been due firstly to the futility of so doing since the Comptroller was not under the law required to specify the sources of income in his notice of assessment à â âEUR see ABC v The Comptroller of Income Tax 1959 MLJ 162 or secondly to the superfluity of so doing since the rate of tax for investment income and trading income was the same 15 It was further contended that the Boardà â â s omnibus reference to à â Ëoecircumstances surrounding the developmentà â â was clear and therefore unsatisfactory that their finding that if Darmadi had intended to retain the flats as investment he would have purchased them from the appellant was an incorrect hypothesis and that the Boardà â â s finding that à â Ëoethe flats had been retained until such time when they could fetch a better price since according to Lim à â Å the property market started to move after 1974à â  à â â made no sense because if I understood the argument correctly it was not possible to say what a better price was and what such time in the future was for determining such better price 16 Finally counsel contended that as the evidence adduced by the appellant was not seriously challenged or controverted by the Comptroller the appellant had discharged the onus which he conceded was higher on it than on an individual of proving that the profit in question was a capital receipt 17 In the context of Lord Radcliffeà â â s speech in Edwards v Bairstow Harrison 1955 36 TC 207 and the Court of Appealà â â s decision in CBH v Comptroller of Income Tax 1982 1 MLJ 112 CA as to the test an appellate body must apply in hearing an appeal of this nature the submissions of counsel for the applicant can be distilled and encapsulated into one contention and that is the Board erred in law in that no reasonable body of members constituting an Income Tax Review Board could have reached the findings reached by the Board in this instance When the appellantà â â s appeal is reduced to this dimension it becomes apparent that in this appeal the appellant has a heavy burden to discharge before achieving lift off Clearly the Board had ample evidence before them to make the findings they did Although in their written judgment the Board might not have addressed each of the appellantà â â s submissions they have dealt specifically with the main points and pointedly said they had taken into account all the other circumstances Whilst counsel for the appellant may justifiably criticise the Boardà â â s faulty reasoning that if Darmadi had intended to retain the eight flats as an investment he would have purchased them in his own name it could not be said that the finding itself ie of Darmadià â â s intention was wrong as it was supported by an alternative but valid ground ie Darmadià â â s disinterest in making small money from the development which ground the Board in fact also relied upon Again the Board might not have made a microscopic appraisal of AWlà â â s evidence on the original intention of Darmadi but their primary finding was an implicit rejection of AW1à â â s evidence on this point 18 What was the tenor of the undisputed facts relied on by the appellant Except for the oral evidence of AW1 on Darmadià â â s intention substantially all the other material facts that were garnered in aid of the appellantà â â s case were colourless facts There facts were 1 the retention of eight flats for six years à â âEUR see Oliver v Farnsworth 37 TC 51 sale proceeds of house built by builder in 1929 and sold in 1953 held to be trading receipt James Hobson Sons v Newall where houses built by company were not saleable and let for almost 24 years held that houses were part of trading stock 2 the statements to the Controller of Housing that eight flats were retained as investments and the classification of eight flats as à â ËoeFixed Assetsà â â in balance sheets of appellant from 1974 to 1981 à â âEUR see Shadford v Fairweather Co 43 TC 291 land purchased in 1958 by company and described as fixed asset in its accounts sold in 1960 held a trading transaction Bowie HM Taxes v Reg Dunn Builders 49 TC 469 property held by company a builder since date of purchase in 1958 as a fixed asset in its accounts until 1966 when it was sold held a trading asset WM Robb v Page 47 TC 465 property shown in accounts as a fixed asset for the years 1952 to 1962 held a trading asset 3 the statements in directorsà â â reports for the financial years 1976 to 1981 that the appellantà â â s activities were property development and the holding of property for rental à â âEUR see authorities referred to in 2 above 4 the memorandum of association had as one of its objects the business of proprietors of flats à â âEUR see WM Robb v Page where there was a similar object clause and Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Hyndland Investment Co 14 TC 694 where Lord President Clyde said in relation to a memorandum of association which had as one of its objects the acquisition of land and the holding of the same as an investment that the question was not what business the taxpayer professed to carry on but what business he actually carried on 5 the furnishing of the seven flats at considerable expense for letting à â âEUR see West v Phillips 38 TC 203 207 where Wynn Parry J said at p 214 in relation to houses built for investment that redecoration making ready for sale and advertising for sale were colourless facts in that they do not change the character of such houses to stock in trade 6 the appellant did not have external borrowings for the Highpoint development and therefore was under no financial pressure to sell the eight flats 19 In contrast there was a considerable body of evidence before the Board which pointed in the direction of the appellant being a property developer for sale ie 1 the incorporation of a company to purchase the property for development of luxury flats and the appellant applying for a developerà â â s licence for sale 2 the appellant describing its business as property development itself as a property developer and describing its principal activity from 1971 to 1973 and its only activity from 1974 to 1975 as being the development and construction of luxury apartments for sale 3 the omission of the appellant

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/cases-in-articles/building-and-construction/sample-article1-building-contstruction (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Shipping
    Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 Shipping Display By Year select 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1989 1988 1977 The Vasiliy Golovnin 2007 4 SLR 277 2007 SGHC 116 Decision Date July 31 2007 The Asia Star 2007 3 SLR 1 2007 SGCA 17 Decision Date March 27 2007 The Pacific Vigorous 2006 3 SLR 374 2006 SGHC 103 Decision Date June 9 2006 The Inai Selasih ex Geopotes X 2006 2 SLR 181 2006 SGCA 4 Decision Date February 2 2006 UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd 2006 1 SLR 1 2005 SGCA 42 Decision Date September 14 2005 Antara Koh Pte Ltd v Eng Tou Offshore Pte Ltd 2005 4 SLR 521 2005 SGHC 166 Decision Date September 5 2005 The Sunrise Crane 2004 4 SLR 715 2004 SGCA 42 Decision Date September 13 2004 Pan United Shipping Pte Ltd v Cendrawasih Shipping Pte Ltd 2004 SGHC 32 Decision Date February 23 2004 Sunlight Mercantile Pte Ltd and Another v Ever Lucky Shipping Co Ltd 2004 1 SLR 171 2003 SGCA 47 Decision Date November

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/cases-in-articles/shipping (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • High Court Judgments
    Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration ADR Publications Laws of Singapore Overview Commercial Law Case Law Cases in Articles Free Law Arbitration Cases Statutes Singapore Law Watch Headline News Commentaries Judgments Legislation Notices Directions Continuing Legal Education Resources Media Press Releases Speeches Publications Online References Sample Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 High Court Judgments There are no articles

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/high-court-judgments (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Court of Appeal Judgments
    Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration ADR Publications Laws of Singapore Overview Commercial Law Case Law Cases in Articles Free Law Arbitration Cases Statutes Singapore Law Watch Headline News Commentaries Judgments Legislation Notices Directions Continuing Legal Education Resources Media Press Releases Speeches Publications Online References Sample Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 Court of Appeal Judgments There are no

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/court-of-appeal-judgments (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Arbitrability and Public Policy
    Case Law Cases in Articles Free Law Arbitration Cases Statutes Singapore Law Watch Headline News Commentaries Judgments Legislation Notices Directions Continuing Legal Education Resources Media Press Releases Speeches Publications Online References Sample Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 Arbitrability and Public Policy 2014 3 SLR 815 Silica Investors Limited v Tomolugen Holdings Limited and others 1995 3 SLR

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/arbitration-cases/arbitrability-and-public-policy (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Arbitral Tribunal
    appeal 2014 1 SLR 130 International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and another 2013 4 SLR 972 TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd 2013 1 SLR 973 International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and another 2011 4 SLR 633 Kempinski Hotels SA v PT Prima International Development 2011 3 SLR 118 Doshion Ltd v Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd 2011 1 SLR 217 Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co Ltd v Econ NCC Joint Venture 2010 1 SLR 1065 Sobati General Trading LLC v PT Multistrada Arahsarana 2009 1 SLR R 985 NCC International AB v Land Transport Authority of Singapore 2009 1 SLR R 23 Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd 2005 3 SLR R 512 Yee Hong Pte Ltd v Powen Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd 2004 3 SLR R 184 Sabah Shipyard Pakistan Ltd v Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 2003 4 SLR R 257 PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd 2002 2 SLR R 1063 Koh Bros Building and Civil Engineering Contractor Pte Ltd v Scotts Development Saraca Pte Ltd 2002 1 SLR R 492 Dermajaya Properties Sdn Bhd v Premium Properties Sdn Bhd and another 2001 2 SLR R 273 Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey v Tan Poh Leng Stanley 2000 3 SLR R 847 Tan Poh Leng Stanley v Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey 1996 3 SLR R 17 Antara Koh Pte Ltd v Government of Singapore 1995 3 SLR R 354 Re An Arbitration Between Hainan Machinery Import and Export Corp and Donald McArthy Pte Ltd 1995 2 SLR R 282 Bocotra Construction Pte Ltd and others v Attorney General 1994 3 SLR R 723 Bocotra Construction Pte Ltd and others v Attoryeny General 1993

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/arbitration-cases/arbitral-tribunal (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Award
    2011 4 SLR 455 Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd v LW Infrastructure Pte Ltd 2011 4 SLR 305 CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara Persero TBK 2011 3 SLR 476 Healthcare Supply Chain Pte Ltd v Roche Diagnostics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd 2011 2 SLR 1086 Holland Leedon Pte Ltd in liquidation v Metalform Asia Pte Ltd 2011 1 SLR 681 Engineering Construction Pte Ltd v Sanchoon Builders Pte Ltd 2011 1 SLR 517 Holland Leedon Pte Ltd in liquidation v Metalform Asia Pte Ltd 2011 1 SLR 246 Econ Piling Pte Ltd and another both formerly trading as Econ NCC Joint Venture v Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co Ltd 2010 4 SLR 672 PT Perusahaan Gas Negara Persero TBK v CRW Joint Operation 2010 4 SLR 649 AJT v AJU 2010 3 SLR 1 Sui Southern Gas Co Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Co Pte Ltd 2010 2 SLR 625 Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Constructions Pte Ltd and others 2010 1 SLR 573 Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd v Exim Rajathi India Pvt Ltd 2009 4 SLR R 1043 Tay Eng Chuan v United Overseas Insurance Ltd 2008 3 SLR R 871 Dongwoo Mann Hummel Co Ltd v Mann Hummel GmbH 2007 4 SLR R 809 Ng Chin Siau and others v How Kim Chuan 2007 3 SLR R 86 Soh Beng Tee Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd 2007 2 SLR R 789 Ng Chin Siau and others v How Kim Chuan 2007 1 SLR R 597 PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia Persero v Dexia Bank SA 2007 1 SLR R 32 Fairmount Development Pte Ltd v Soh Beng Tee Co Pte Ltd 2007 1 SLR R 278 Government of the Republic of the Philippines v Philippine International Air Terminals Co Inc 2006 4 SLR R 419 Progen Engineering Pte Ltd v Chua Aik Kia trading as Uni Sanitary Electrical Construction 2006 1 SLR R 197 PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia Persero v Dexia Bank SA 2005 2 SLR R 270 Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hyundai Engineering Construction Co Ltd 2004 4 SLR R 705 Luzon Hydro Corp v Transfield Philippines Inc 2004 3 SLR R 59 Liew Ter Kwang v Hurry General Contractor Pte Ltd 2004 2 SLR R 494 Northern Elevator Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v United Engineers Singapore Pte Ltd 2003 4 SLR R 257 PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd 2003 3 SLR R 546 0 ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd 2002 1 SLR R 401 PT Garuda Indonesia v Birgen Air 2001 1 SLR R 443 John Holland Pty Ltd formerly konwn as John Holland Construction Engineering Pty Ltd v Toyo Engineering Corp Japan 2000 3 SLR R 989 Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd v Sembawang Kimtrans S Pte Ltd 2000 3 SLR R 847 Tan Poh Leng STanley v Tang Boon Jek Jeffrey 2000 1 SLR R 648 Lum Chang Contractors Pte Ltd v Anderson Land Pte Ltd 2000 1

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/arbitration-cases/award (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Challenge Against Arbitrator
    Free Law Arbitration Cases Statutes Singapore Law Watch Headline News Commentaries Judgments Legislation Notices Directions Continuing Legal Education Resources Media Press Releases Speeches Publications Online References Sample Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 Challenge Against Arbitrator 2003 2 SLR R 287 Anwar Siraj and another Ting Kang Chung and another 1985 1986 SLR R 711 Tan Tong Meng

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/arbitration-cases/challenge-against-arbitrator (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive



  •