SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Pevans East Africa Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 249 of 2022) [2023] KETAT 495 (KLR) (18 August 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KETAT 495 (KLR) Tax Appeals Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal
Case number
495
Citation
[2023] KETAT 495 (KLR)
Decided
18 August 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTax AppealPostureAppeal from a notice of assessmentCoramERIC NYONGESA WAFULA, CYNTHIA B. MAYAKA, GRACE MUKUHA, JEPHTHAH NJAGI, ABRAHAM K. KIPROTICH
Holding

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the Respondent's objection decision on Withholding tax on winnings and confirming the partial judgment dated 19th June 2023.

Facts

Pevans East Africa Limited was assessed for various taxes including Withholding tax on winnings. The Appellant argued that the Respondent was not justified in assessing the Withholding tax on winnings due to court orders barring the Respondent from demanding and collecting WHT on winnings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent was justified in raising the assessment on Withholding tax on winnings

Reasoning

The Tribunal ruled that the Appellant was not obligated to pay WHT on winnings during the period when restraining orders were in place, and that the Respondent's computation of WHT on winnings was incorrect.

Outcome

The Appellant's appeal was partially allowed.

Orders

  • The Respondent's objection decision on Withholding tax on winnings is set aside.
  • The partial judgment dated 19th June 2023 is confirmed.

Remedies

  • The Respondent is awarded the costs of the appeal.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Finance Act 2018
  • Tax Law (Amendment Act) 2018
  • Betting, Lotteries and Gaming Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case