KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI vs ABTP MARKETING SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 1693

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI – Appellant
Versus
ABTP MARKETING SDN BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Mohamad Hafidz Ahmad,Syazana Safiah Rozman ,Respondent Advocate: Donovan Cheah,Lim Zi-Han

Table of Content
1. undisputed facts of the case (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. oem surcharge not a penalty (Para 11 , 12)
3. r&d expenditure qualifies as deductible (Para 13 , 14)
4. capital vs revenue expenditure distinction (Para 15 , 19)
5. maintenance expenses deductible (Para 20 , 21)
6. commission and interest expenses deductible (Para 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. capital allowances for machinery deductible (Para 29)
8. partial allowance of appeal (Para 30)

Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court that dismissed the appeal of the Director General of Inland Revenue (the Revenue) and at the same time allowed the appeal of the taxpayer, ie ABTP Marketing Sdn Bhd (ABTP). Both appeals before the High Court were from the deciding order of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (the SCIT) in respect of ABTP's appeal against additional assessment.

Background Facts

[2] The basic undisputed facts extracted from the judgment of the High Court and the grounds of decision of the SCIT are as follows.

[3] ABTP was appointed as the marketing channel for anti-bacterial triple-layer polymer water pipes for another company, namely ME-Plas (M) Sdn B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 1693

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAKETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI – AppellantVersusABTP MARKETING SDN BHD – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI – Appellant
Versus
ABTP MARKETING SDN BHD – Respondent