The Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) have recently delivered their decision in EFTB v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri, concerning the deductibility of Perbadanan Insurans Deposit Malaysia (PIDM) expenses. The decision considers, among others, the interplay between Section 33(1) and Section 60AA of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA), as well as the legal effect of the Income Tax (Deduction for Payment of Premium to Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation) Rules 2013 (201

RDS Partnership is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q3 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues 2) When Is a Drink Not a Beverage? High Court Rules on Yakult’s Tariff Classification by S. Saravana Kumar, Amira Azhar & Rita Soong

Stamp duty on employment contracts has moved from a largely overlooked administrative requirement to an increasingly important compliance issue for Malaysian employers. Recent developments have provided greater clarity on the treatment of employment contracts, including which documents require stamping, the position for contracts executed in different periods, and the treatment of subsequent documents such as promotion, transfer and bonus letters. For businesses with larg

“For stamp duty purposes, the label placed on a document is rarely decisive. What matters is what the instrument actually does, the rights and obligations it creates, and the transaction it records.” Stamp duty is often treated as a back-office compliance issue. In practice, it is becoming a much broader governance concern. This is especially so as businesses generate large volumes of documents across procurement, treasury, human resources and commercial functions. Employme

Last Monday, the Court of Appeal in Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Exceptional Landmark Sdn Bhd unanimously dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the concurrent decisions of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) and the High Court that the gains arising from the disposal of a warehouse to a real estate investment trust (REIT) are not subject to income tax. The taxpayer in this matter was successfully represented by the firm's Tax, SST & Customs Partner, S.

Last week, the High Court quashed a RM 313 million additional tax assessment raised against a taxpayer who had elected for joint assessment with her late husband. The court held that the assessment was illegal and irrational and amounted to double taxation. In NAK v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri, the High Court allowed the taxpayer's judicial review application and quashed the Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) Notice of Additional Assessment (Form JA) for the year of assessm

The High Court has delivered an important decision for businesses investing in digital transformation, confirming that expenditure incurred on the development, customisation and upgrading of banking software may qualify for both capital allowance (CA) and accelerated capital allowance (ACA) under Schedule 3 of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA). In dismissing the Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) appeal, the High Court in Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v M Bank upheld the decision

近日，所得税特别委员法庭（Special Commissioners of Income Tax，简称“SCIT”）在 PSB 诉 马来西亚内陆税收局总监（Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri） 一案中裁定纳税人胜诉，并明确指出，在缺乏明确法定授权的情况下，内陆税收局（“税收局”）无权重构交易安排以取得更有利于征税的结果。特别是，SCIT裁定，当股份是在单一交易中以单一对价出售时，税收局无权将处置价格进行分摊。 SCIT进一步澄清，股份的取得日期仅与确定股份取得价格（acquisition price）有关，而与处置价格（disposal price）的计算无关。处置价格应严格限于纳税人因有关处置实际收取的 “金钱或金钱等值代价（money or money’s worth）” 。 案件背景 2018年9月13日，纳税人以象征性代价RM1购入PCSB全部已发行股本中的1股股份。 其后，于2018年9月28日，纳税人以RM470万购入一幅永久地契土地，并通过提名函（Nomination...

Last week, the High Court affirmed the the Special Commissioners of Income Tax’s (SCIT) decision in Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Kristal Penaga Sdn Bhd and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue. The court held that the gains made by the taxpayer from the sale of a piece of land in Mont Kiara are not subject to income tax as contended by the Revenue. The taxpayer in this appeal was successfully represented by the firm’s Tax, SST and Customs Partner, S. Saravana Kumar

SAC v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri 一案中，所得税特别委员会（SCIT）的裁决，引发了有关政部长根据1967年所得税法令（Income Tax Act 1967，简称 ITA）第127(3A) 条授予税务豁免权的适用范围、土地认购选择权（call option）的法律性质，以及税务机关是否可以事后重新诠释税务优惠条件等重要法律问题。 本案的核心争议在于：纳税人在2016课税年度（YA 2016）所取得的认购选择权费，是否属于财政部长根据第127(3A)条所授予税务豁免范围内的“源自土地权利处置所得的法定收入”。 SCIT裁定，纳税人所收取的认购选择权费属于财政部长依据《所得税法令》第127(3A) 条所授予税务优惠的适用范围, 因此可享有所得税豁免。 纳税人由本所税务、销售与服务税（SST）及关税（Customs）合伙人 S. Saravana Kumar 与 Nur Amira Ahmad Azhar，以及高级律师 Nur Hanina Mohd Azham 成功代理。 法定框架：所得

马来西亚将从 2026 年 1 月 1 日 起对其印花税框架进行全面改革，标志着向自我评估制度 (Self-Assessment) 的转型，并加强执法力度，这是更广泛的税务行政改革的一部分。 有关修订是根据《2025 年财政法案》和《2025 年税收征收、管理与执行措施法案》制定，《1949 年印花税法》(Stamp Act 1949) 作出修订，全面改变了印花税的评估、缴纳及执行方式。 印花税自我评估制度 (Stamp Duty Self-Assessment System (SDSAS)) 在修订之前，马来西亚的印花税运作于官方评估制度。在该制度下，纳税人必须通过印花税评估及缴付系统（STAMPS）将应课税文书提交给印花税征收官（Collector）进行裁定、估值、发出评估通知及缴费。这使得确定印花税的主要责任落在税务机关身上，而非纳税人。 从 2026 年 1 月 1 日起，将转向 SDSAS。纳税人需负责自行评估、申报，并通过 MyTax 门户网站的 e-Duti Setem (e-DS) 平台缴纳正确金额的印花税。

Last Friday, the High Court allowed the judicial review application filed by Yakult (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Company) and set aside the Customs’ decision to reclassify the “Yakult Ace” and “Yakult Ace Light” (Products) drinks manufactured by the company from fermented milk products to beverages. The High Court held that the Products should properly fall under tariff code 0403.90.9000 as “other fermented or acidified milk” as opposed to under tariff code 2202.99.5000 as “other non-

The High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB), affirming a decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) that a RM 1.4 million call option fee received by a taxpayer was exempt from income tax under a special tax incentive package granted by the Minister of Finance (MOF). The taxpayer was successfully represented by the firm’s Tax, SST & Customs Partner, S. Saravana Kumar together with Senior Associate, Nur Hanina Mohd Azham. This r

The Customs Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) has delivered a significant decision on tariff classification, ruling that a tobacco manufacturer's cigarillo products were correctly classified under Tariff Code 2402.10.0000 as cigarillos containing tobacco, and not under Tariff Code 2402.20.9000 as cigarettes containing tobacco as contended by the Royal Malaysian Customs Department (Customs). Beyond the immediate classification issue, the decision is noteworthy for two broader princ

The global investment landscape is undergoing a profound shift. For decades, countries competed primarily on low labour costs, tax incentives and manufacturing capacity. Today, investors are increasingly prioritising policy stability, skilled talent, innovation ecosystems and strategic partnerships capable of supporting long-term growth. Across Southeast Asia, competition for high-value investment is intensifying. Economies that succeed in the next industrial cycle will not

Recently, the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) in PSB v KPHDN ruled in favour of the taxpayer and held that the Inland Revenue Board (Revenue) cannot, in the absence of clear statutory authority, reconstruct a transaction to arrive at a more favourable tax outcome. Particularly, the SCIT held that where shares are disposed of in a single transaction for a single consideration, the Revenue has no power to apportion the disposal price. The SCIT further clarified tha

Recently, the High Court allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against the decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT) and held that the capital expenditure incurred on petrol station canopies and lighting qualifies as plant for the purposes of capital allowances under Schedule 3 of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA). Brief Facts The taxpayer is in the retail and marketing of petroleum products through petrol stations across Malaysia. The taxpayer incurred capital expen

近日，上诉庭一致裁定允许一名纳税人的上诉，确认其可就为兴建高尔夫球场及休闲设施所支出的 1 亿4,100万令吉资本开支可申索资本津贴。 背景 该纳税人在柔佛经营一家高尔夫及休闲俱乐部。于2010课税年度（YA 2010），纳税人就兴建以下项目产生资本开支, 统称为“争议项目”： 高尔夫球场（包括排水系统、草皮及铺设工程、土地成本、维修工坊、高尔夫球车充电站、球袋站、球童站及其他附带费用） 游泳池 儿童戏水池 健身房 两个网球场 乒乓球室 儿童游乐区 更衣室 毛巾站及洗手间 多功能室 餐饮场所 阅读室 健康中心 专卖店及运动用品店 所得税特别委员会（SCIT）及高等法院均不允许纳税人就上述争议项目申索资本津贴，理由是依赖上诉庭在 Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Resort Poresia Sdn Bhd (2015) MSTC 30-090 一案中的裁决，该案曾裁定高尔夫球场属于营业场所，因此不符合“厂房及机器”（plant and machinery）的定义。 高等法院在本案中亦补充指出，只有在少

RDS is pleased to publish RDS Legal Insight Q1 of 2026. This quarterly magazine features the following articles by our colleagues: 6) Global Minimum Tax (Pillar Two): Implementation in Malaysia by Amira Ahmad Azhar & Dharshini Sharmaa

Recently, the High Court in CMSB v KPHDN delivered an important ruling on the tax treatment of interest income arising from instalment sales. The Court held that such charges should be treated as business income under Section 4(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA) rather than as interest income under Section 4(c). The dispute centred on the proper interpretation of Section 24(5) of the ITA, in particular whether the two limbs of the provision operate disjunctively and how t