RAYUANSIBILNO12-114-2007-PortalRasmiMahkamah.docVIP

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI ALOR SETAR DALAM NEGERI KEDAH DARUL AMAN, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: 14NCvC-1-08/2012 ANTARA KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI PERAYU DAN HICOM-SUZUKI MANUFACTURING (M) SDN. BHD. RESPONDEN KES DINYATAKAN OLEH PESURUHJAYA KHAS CUKAI PENDAPATAN BAGI PENDAPAT MAHKAMAH TINGGI MENURUT PERENGGAN 34 JADUAL 5 AKTA CUKAI PENDAPATAN 1967 DALAM PERKARA PESURUHJAYA KHAS CUKAI PENDAPATAN RAYUAN NO: PKCP(R) 76/2010 ANTARA KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI PERAYU DAN HICOM-SUZUKI MANUFACTURING (M) SDN. BHD. RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 1. This was a case stated dated 27-07-2012 for the opinion of the High Court pursuant to paragraph 34 of schedule 5 of the Income Act 1967 (the Act). The aforesaid provision allows either party to proceedings before the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SC) to appeal on a point of law against a deciding order made. In the proceedings before the SC, the relevant agreed facts were- (i) The Appellant Company (Hicom) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965. (ii) Hicom is in the business of machining and assembling of motor cycle engines and engine parts. (iii) In the year 2003, in line with its expansion and modernisation programme, Hicom purchased new machineries tools and implements to keep its operations in line with the world of technology. (iv) The IRB disallowed the unabsorbed Reinvestment Allowance of RM325,161.00 for the Year of Assessment 2004 incurred for supervision fees and other related expenses by Hicom in relation to the setting up and installation in the Year of Assessment 2003 which amount was carried forward. (v) The IRB had imposed penalty on the Appellant Company for the Year of Assessment 2004 for a total amount of RM40,970.29 on the Capital expenditure for a qualifying project disallowed by them. (vi) The Respondent had allowed the claim for Reinvestment Allowance on the machineries, tools and implements claimed by the Hicom for the Year of Assessment 2003. 2. T