2026 |
|---|
| Date of Delivery | Case Number | Applicable Legislation | Keywords |
|---|
14 April 2026
New! | IT 24852 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Whether the appellant is entitled to deduct the amount of R38 831 547 as a loss under section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962 in its 2015 year of assessment – whether the respondent was correct in imposing a 10% understatement penalty – whether the interest levied under section 89quat of the Income Tax Act should be waived. |
10 April 2026
New! | IT 77151 | Tax Administration Act, 2011 | Whether: - The respondent met the jurisdictional requirements in section 92 of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 to raise the additional assessments for the year of assessment on 25 to 28 June 2021 after an assessment was raised for the same year on 24 December 2020.
- The respondent met the jurisdictional requirements to reopen the assessments for the 2013 to 2016 years of assessment in terms of section 99 of the Tax Administration Act and whether the right to do so had prescribed.
- The appellant’s cost of sales was inflated by “kickbacks” as alleged by the respondent and, whether this expenditure is deductible in terms of section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1962, and was incurred in the production of income and for the purposes of the appellant’s trade.
- The respondent can rely on section 23(o) of the Income Tax Act on the basis of the factual finding that the appellant’s cost of sales was overstated by the quantum of aggregate of the amounts allegedly paid by Company Kozi and Company Zulu in terms of the “Business Development Services” agreements.
- The respondent was entitled and correct to disallow the interest deduction claimed for the 2015 year of assessment on the basis that it was –
- not incurred in the production of income; and
- was not bona fide.
- The respondent correctly disallowed the deduction for consultancy fees and management fees claimed as operating expenditure on the basis that they were –
- not incurred in the year of assessment that they were claimed; and
- not incurred in the production of income or capital in nature.
- The respondent lawfully and justifiably imposed the understatement penalties in terms of section 223 of the Tax Administration Act, 2011.
- The respondent’s refusal to remit penalties for the underpayment of provisional tax in terms of paragraph 20(2) of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Act is valid in circumstances where the taxpayer has not made such request and consequently the respondent has not decided regarding this.
- The respondent afforded the appelant the opportunity to make representations on the imposition of interest on the underpayment of provisional tax.
- The additional tax assessment raised was reasonableness.
|
| 18 March 2026 | VAT 32666 | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | VAT on service fee: Whether VAT on service fees, which the Taxpayer debited against the accounts of its clients in terms of a banker/client agreement, could be deducted as an input tax in subsequent VAT returns after the service fees were subsequently credited to the accounts of the clients. |
| 12 March 2026 | VAT 12167 | Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 | Condonation application |
| 13 January 2026 | IT 77034 | Income Tax Act, 1962 | Application for condonation and to strike out |
