Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

REVENUE LAW- INCOME TAX- ALLOWANCE

Rule 3 of the Income Tax (Allowance for Increased Export) Rules 1999:

  1. Allowance for increased exports

‘Subject to rules 4 and 5, where a manufacturing company or a company engaged in agriculture, resident in Malaysia, exports manufactured products or agricultural produce in the basis period for a year of assessment, there shall be given to the company an allowance to be determined in the manner as prescribed in Rule 4:

Provided that an exemption on exports manufactured products is only given to manufacturer.’

I am an owner of a durian plantation and I own a warehouse where I store and pack my durians before they are exported to Thailand and other countries. My export sale has increased as I am now working with more retailers. Am I eligible for an “increased export allowance”? I have heard that I can claim an industrial building allowance for the warehouse where I store the durians.

Q: What is an “increased export allowance”?

A: It is the tax exemption that is awarded to a company when they have an increase in export sales.

Q: What is an “industrial building allowance”?

A: It is the allowance given to the owner of the industrial building that is associated with the business of the company.

Q: What is an “industrial building”?

A: Para 37C, 63, and 64 of Schedule 3 of the Income Tax Act 1967 have made it clear that your building must be one that is used for the purposes of a business and the housing of machinery or plant.

Q: Am I eligible for “increased export allowance” and “industrial building allowance”?

A: Since you have planted the durian trees yourself and you export the durians to other countries, you are eligible for the “increased export allowance,” provided that you are a Malaysian citizen. You have used the warehouse for storage and packaging purposes of the durian before they are exported. Therefore, you can claim the “industrial building allowance.”

I have purchased the plants from others and I export them to other sellers in different countries. I own a factory where I check and pack the plants before they are exported.

Q: Am I eligible for the increased export allowance and industrial building allowance?

A: Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules states that a company must be associated with agriculture to be entitled to the export allowance, and since you have purchased the plants from others, you are not entitled to the allowance. However, since you are using the factory to check and pack the plants, you can claim the industrial building allowance.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 April ,2025 No Comments

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us