Kenyan case law

Space Geo Enterprises Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal 238 of 2019) [2021] KETAT 152 (KLR) (9 July 2021) (Judgment)

Wanjohi Contractors & General Supplies Limited v Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement (Appeal 39 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 116 (KLR) (9 July 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal found the Appellant's notice of objection validly lodged and upheld the Respondent's tax assessment.

Maxam Limited v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control & another (Appeal 201 of 2019) [2021] KETAT 69 (KLR) (9 July 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal found that the Respondent’s assessment was proper in law and that the method used to determine the customs value was not in error.

Akbarali v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal 524 of 2019) [2021] KETAT 114 (KLR) (9 July 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal upheld the assessment, finding that the Respondent had exercised best judgment in assessing the taxes and that the Appellant had not provided sufficient justification for the disputed items.

Granada Trading Company Limited v Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement (Appeal 331 of 2019) [2021] KETAT 44 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal finds that the Respondent erred in assessing the taxes of the Appellant's director and that the demand should have been made directly to the director.

Sonlink (Kenya) Company Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal 97 of 2019) [2021] KETAT 119 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appellant's appeal is dismissed. The Respondent's assessment is upheld.

Special Collection Services Limited v Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement (Tax Appeal 328 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 108 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal finds no appealable decision available to the Tribunal for consideration and is unsustainable in law.

Kenya Breweries Limited v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Appeal 282 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 144 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appeal is allowed, and the Appellant's classification of Apple Concentrate under HS Tariff Code 2106.90.20 is upheld.

SAJ Ceramics Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal 531 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 80 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appellant's tax credits are valid and should have been captured in the iTax system.

Menengai Oil Refineries Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 408 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 81 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appellant did not meet the criteria for seeking prior written approval as the requirement was introduced after the importation of the parts.

Consolbase Limited v Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement (Tax Appeal 138 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 63 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

Mistry Investments Limited v Commiss1oner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 308 of 2019) [2021] KETAT 79 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal finds that the Respondent’s Objection Decision dated 23rd April 2020 is lawful pursuant to Section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act.

Dyer & Dyer Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal 139 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 18 (KLR) (Appeals) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appellant's late objection was not validly lodged as it did not comply with Section 51 (3) (c) of the Tax Procedures Act 2015.

Sirikwa Eldoret Hotel Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 408 of 2019) [2021] KETAT 172 (KLR) (25 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appeal is dismissed.

Mtwapa Developers Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal 60 of 2021) [2021] KETAT 72 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal finds that the Appellant did not demonstrate that a twenty-month delay in filing an application for extension of time was not inordinate and inexcusable.

Wallpaper Kenya v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Appeal 279 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 117 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Respondent erred in law and fact by failing to respond to the Appellant’s review letter within the statutory period.

Cleanshelf Supermarkets Limited v Commissioner of Domestic TAxes (Appeal 194 of 2018) [2021] KETAT 19 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appeal is merited, and the Tribunal allows the Appeal, vacating the Objection Decision and the resultant assessment.

SEO and Sons Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal 115 of 2018) [2021] KETAT 120 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not err in its assessment for VAT on the Appellant

Solutions Medical Systems Limited v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Tax Appeal 472 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 173 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appeal is properly before the Tribunal and the correct tariff classification is 8421.29.00.

Tbea Company Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 466 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 122 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Respondent's assessment notice.

Kaimbaga Enterprises Limited v Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement (Appeal 37 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 130 (KLR) (Appeals) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal found the Appellant's notice of objection validly lodged and the Commissioner's decision to invalidate the objection was overturned.

Basra Buliding and Construction Company Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 420 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 36 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appeal is dismissed, and the Respondent's confirmed assessment is upheld.

Kifaru Enterprises Limited v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Tax Appeal 593 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 92 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

Kinyua v Commissioner of Investigations & Enforcement (Appeal 395 of 2019) [2021] KETAT 132 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Appeal is dismissed, and the Objection Decision is upheld.

Stefanutti Stocks Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal 18 of 2020) [2021] KETAT 168 (KLR) (18 June 2021) (Judgment)

✦ The Tribunal found that the Respondent erred in disallowing the Appellant's deferred revenue and disallowed the expenditure incurred for the year 2013 in respect of deferred income. The Respondent's decision to disallow personnel expenses and related party expenses was upheld.