We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology Newsfeed
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store
  • Analytics
  • Insights
  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Google Plus
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact customerservices@lexology.com

Register

Banking/revenue

WongPartnership LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

Singapore June 30 2011

Further Islamic Financing Structures Prescribed under Section 34B of the Income Tax Act

WongPartnership LLP - Susan Wong and Alvin Chia
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Google Plus
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • Singapore
  • Banking
  • Tax
  • WongPartnership LLP

Tagged with

  • Revenue
  • The Income-tax Act, 1961
  • Islam

Popular articles from this firm

  1. A court must examine the entire factual matrix of the case to determine if the facts show that the beneficiary of an on-demand performance bond had acted unconscionably and without good faith when making a call on the demand, and if it had, the court woul *
  2. Thanakharn Kasikorn Thai Chamkat (Mahachon) v Akai Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) *
  3. Pearson & Ors v Lehman Brothers Finance SA & Ors [2010] EWHC 2914 (CH) (England, High Court, 19 November 2010) *
  4. Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (England, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2013) *
  5. Grupo Hotelero Urvasco SA v Carey Value Added SL & Anor [2013] EWHC 1039 (Comm) (England, High Court, 26 April 2013) *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries@lexology.com.

Send to Create
Powered by Lexology

Related topic hubs

  1. Singapore
  2. Banking
  3. Tax

Lexology Navigator Q&A

Compare jurisdictions: Merger Control

  1. Singapore
  2. Argentina
  3. Spain
  4. More...
Gee Yung Loong
Senior Director
McAfee Inc
What our clients say

"I think it is a great service, continue the good work."

Back to Top
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Globe Business Media Group

© Copyright 2006 - 2018 Globe Business Media Group