Audit Triggers
Actionable insights from legal citations and institutional intelligence for legal professionals.
| Citation | Industry | Audit Point / Trigger | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taylor Winch (Coffee) Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes. | Purchase and supply of coffee to its sister company in Switzerland | Interest free loans | Read Full Analysis |
| Tile and Carpet Centre Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes | Whether the Appellant borrowed funds from a commercial bank to finance the purchase of land on behalf of a related company and if so whether part of the interest on those borrowings should -, be restricted and disallowed for corporation tax purposes to the extent of the monies deposited with the Advocates. | Read Full Analysis | |
| Toyota Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Customs Services | Sole distributor of Yamaha motorcycles amongst other brands. | The Duty Remissions Committee and Customs conducted an inspection of Toyota's operations prior to gazettement. The Law clearly stipulates the process for gazettement and degazettement which must be strictly adhered to. | Read Full Analysis |
| Ushindi Exporters Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes. | Triggered by a report from the Kenya National Assembly to the Respondent to carry out an investigation into gold that had been allegedly smuggled into Kenya from DRC Congo and other places. | Read Full Analysis | |
| Valley View Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes | Family Owned Company | Capital gain vs. Trading Gain | Read Full Analysis |
| W.E.C Lines (Kenya) Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes. | Shipping Agents of a Netherlands Company | Industry Wide- Demurrage Charges | Read Full Analysis |
| Katebes Enterprises Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E332 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1293 (KLR) (23 August 2024) (Judgment) | Construction | The KRA averred that it carried out an audit on the Appellant’s books of account and established that the Appellant did business with Kenya National Highways Authority and failed to declare VAT as required by law. That during the process of returns review, the Respondent performed an analysis of purchases claimed by purchasers and sales declared by suppliers which were ran on the i-Tax system wherein it was discovered that there were inconsistencies in the returns filed by the Appellant. | Read Full Analysis |
| Alpha Taleo Capital Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E420 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1295 (KLR) (23 August 2024) (Judgment) | Retail | A variance between turnover declared in the consolidated VAT returns and the grossed-up turnover from withholding credits for years 2019 to 2022. | Read Full Analysis |
| Belvacon Company Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E225 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1313 (KLR) (23 August 2024) (Judgment) | Construction | This additional assessment was based on withholding certificates whose income had allegedly not been declared by the taxpayer. | Read Full Analysis |
| Jasir Contractors Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Appeal E475 of 2023) [2024] KETAT 1233 (KLR) (Civ) (23 August 2024) (Judgment) | Contractors | The Tribunal found that the Appellant did not discharge its burden of proof to demonstrate that the Respondent’s additional assessment of VAT was incorrect or excessive as required under Section 62 of the VAT Act, Section 56(1) of the TPA and Section 30 of the TAT Act. | Read Full Analysis |