https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/304

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI TAT NO. E278 OF 2025 DOCOL CONSTRUCTION REHABILITATION & TRADING COMPANY LIMITED .................................................................. APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF DOMESTIC TAXES ................................................. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is an international company operating in Kenya and engaged in the business of construction, logistics, and project execution for international organisations. 2. The Respondent is the principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act. The Kenya Revenue Authority is an agency of the Government of Kenya mandated with the duty of collecting and receiving all tax revenue, and the administration and enforcing all tax laws set out in Parts 1 & 2 of the first schedule to the Act, for the purpose of assessing, collecting, and accounting for all tax revenues in accordance with those laws. Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 1 of 22 3. The issue in dispute in this Appeal arose when the Respondent carried out an audit of the Appellant’s culminating in the issuance of an amended assessment dated 4th December 2024. 4. The Appellant objected to the assessment vide its letter dated 2nd December 2024. 5. The Respondent issued its objection decision dated 7th March 2025, confirming the assessment. 6. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant lodged its Notice of Appeal dated 19th March 2025. THE APPEAL 7. The Appellant was granted leave to file an amended Memorandum of Appeal. The Appellant’s amended memorandum of appeal dated 11 th November 2025 raised the following grounds of appeal: Decision appealed against i. That its appeal is against the Objection Decision dated 7th March 2025, issued by the Commissioner of Legal and Board Services, confirming additional assessments totaling KES 1,115,718,688, comprising Corporation Tax, Withholding Tax, PAYE, and VAT. Corporation tax i. That the Commissioner erred in fact and in law in concluding that the Appellant failed to provide documentation to support the cost of sales. Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 2 of 22 ii. That the said documentation has now been submitted to show that: a) The sample contract shows that the income was not derived or earned in Kenya. b) The contracts were executed, managed, and performed entirely in Somalia under United Nations- funded infrastructure projects, and c) No income accrued in, or was derived from, Kenya within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 470). iii. That there was no need for verification of cost of sales, as the underlying income was foreign-sourced and therefore outside the scope of Kenyan income tax. iv. That it acknowledged that the initial self-assessment returns were filed in error, inadvertently reporting receipts as Kenyan income. v. That the Commissioner issued amended assessments, the same were within the statutory five-year period allowed under Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act (2015), and thus lawfully correctable. Withholding tax i. That the Commissioner misapplied Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, which requires that the person withholding tax be a Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 3 of 22 resident entity in Kenya or a person with a permanent establishment in Kenya. ii. That Docol Construction Rehabilitation and Trading Company Limited (Somalia) is a non-resident entity with no permanent establishment in Kenya, considering that its construction sites and its place of effective management are situated in Somalia. iii. That the Somali entity therefore had no withholding obligation under Kenyan law when paying Kenyan subcontractors who rendered services in Somalia. iv. That the only link to Kenya was the use of a Kenyan bank account for transferring funds, which by itself does not constitute a permanent establishment or create a tax nexus in Kenya. Consequently, no withholding tax should be deemed to arise on such payments. PAYE i. That the Commissioner erred in law and in fact by treating directors' cash withdrawals as employment income. ii. That the funds withdrawn were used exclusively to pay workers and suppliers in Somalia, where banking facilities are unavailable. iii. That these withdrawals do not represent remuneration to the directors. Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 4 of 22 iv. That the principal contract was executed by a non-resident entity (Docol Somalia) with no place of business or employment presence in Kenya; the entity cannot be deemed an employer within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and thus had no PAYE withholding obligation. VAT i. That the Commissioner erred in confirming VAT on supplies performed entirely outside Kenya. ii. That the services provided by Docol Somalia and the materials procured for Somali projects do not fall within the ambit of the Kenyan VAT Act, as the place of performance and consumption of such services was in Somalia. iii. That these transactions are not taxable supplies under Section 7 and Paragraph 2 of Part A of the First Schedule to the VAT Act, 2013. APPELLANT’S CASE 8.The Appellant’s case is grounded in its Statement of Facts dated 11th November 2025 and in written submissions dated 18th December 2025. Corporation structure and relationship 9.The Appellant stated that, due to the volatile political situation in Somalia, the United Nations required that payments be made through the Appellant's bank accounts, which domiciled in Kenya. 10. That its role was strictly treasury-related, involving the receipt and disbursement of funds for project implementation in Somalia, and Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 5 of 22 that the Appellant did not conduct any construction or commercial operations in Kenya. Transfer Pricing Documentation and Evidence 11. The Appellant has submitted that it provided a comprehensive Transfer Pricing Policy, a signed Intercompany Agreement, a Benchmarking Study, and bank statements confirming that all receipts originated from United Nations disbursements and were paid out to Somali suppliers and subcontractors. Basis of Appeal 12. That the evidence demonstrated that the Appellant's role was purely administrative, and that the income subject to assessment does not arise from Kenya within the meaning of the Income Tax and VAT Acts. 13. The Appellant submitted that the allegation of non-filing of VAT returns, without interrogating the nature and situs of the Appellant’s income, is insufficient to justify an adverse inference, as affirmed in Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Total Kenya Limited (2019) eKLR. 14. The Appellant admitted receipt of the letter dated 15th August 2024 but submitted that the relevant documents were held outside Kenya in a volatile jurisdiction, as explained in the proportionality case in Dry Associates Ltd v Capital Markets Authority (2012) eKLR. 15. The Respondent stated, on a without prejudice basis, that its bank statements confirm that its income was not earned in Kenya. The Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 6 of 22 bank statements clearly show that almost all funds received in the Kenyan bank account originated from overseas sources, specifically the United Nations, and were related to construction contracts. 16. The Appellant stated that: a) The Respondent proceeded on an erroneous assumption that any amount deposited into a Kenyan bank account automatically constitutes income earned and taxable in Kenya. b) The Respondent failed to specify which documents were outstanding and which had been supplied, confirming that some documentation was available. c) There was no business transaction in Kenya, as all construction contracts were signed and executed in Somalia by a related entity incorporated in Somalia. d) It was not in a position to provide documents that which did not exist in its records because no construction contracts were entered into in Kenya. 17. The Appellant averred that under Section 3 of the Income Tax Act, business income is taxable in Kenya only if it accrues in, or is deemed to accrue in, Kenya and that no income accrued or was earned in Kenya. 18. The Appellant submitted that reliance on “best judgment” under Section 31 of the Tax Procedures Act must be exercised judiciously, and not mechanically, as was explained in Republic v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes ex parte Sony Holdings Ltd (2019) eKLR. Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 7 of 22 19. The Appellant posited that the current assessments were not reasonable, proportionate, and evidence-based, as was held in Mount Kenya Bottlers Ltd v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (2020) eKLR. 20. It was its view that the respondent created a legitimate expectation by its conduct when it called for a meeting on 27 February 2025 and invited the Appellant to submit documents. It supported this in the case of Republic v KRA ex parte Bata Shoe Company (Kenya) Ltd (2014) eKLR. 21. The Appellant submitted that the invocation of Section 51(4A) of the Tax Procedures Act was erroneous because it was not afforded an opportunity to comply, as was explained in Mount Kenya Bottlers Ltd (supra). 22. The Appellant averred that the charge of counsel does not amount to bad faith, delay, or abuse of process, as was alleged by the Respondent. It supported this view with the case of Republic v KRA ex parte Jafferji (2013) eKLR. 23. The Appellant asserted that the admission of additional documents where justice demands is permitted under section 13(6) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and in Foresight Sacco Society Ltd v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (TAT Appeal No. 3 of 2020). 24. The Appellant posited that, under the circumstances, the case should be remitted to the Commissioner to issue the correct determination of tax as was explained in Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Total Kenya Limited (supra). Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 8 of 22 25. The Appellant avowed that its Application is meritorious and is anchored on sections 51 and 13 of the Tax Procedures Act and the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, as well as Articles 47 and 159 of the Constitution. Appellant’s Prayers 26. The Appellant prays that the Tribunal: a) Sets aside the Objection Decision dated 7 March 2025 in its entirety. b) Finds and declares that the income in question was foreign- sourced and therefore not taxable in Kenya. c) Recognizes that the Appellant's role was limited to treasury functions and that its arm's-length remuneration should be 0.41 percent of the funds handled, as supported by the Transfer Pricing Policy and Benchmarking Study. d) Allows the Appellant to submit supporting documentation out of time, noting that the delay arose because key records were located in multiple jurisdictions, namely Somalia and Kenya. e) Directs the Respondent to review and revise the assessments to reflect the correct tax position, with consideration to the good faith demonstrated by the Appellant in cooperating and providing the full documentation. RESPONDENT’S CASE 27. In opposing the appeal, the respondent grounded its case on its Amended Statement of Facts dated 23rd July 2025 and Written Submissions dated 26th May 2026. Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 9 of 22 28. The Respondent submitted that the following were the issues rising for appeal in this case: a) Whether the Appellant complied with the Honourable Tribunal's Orders of 13th February 2026; b) Whether the Appellant complied with sections 51(3)(c) and 59(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, Cap. 469B; c) Whether the Respondent's Assessments are justified; and d) Whether the Appellant has discharged the burden of proof. 29. The Respondent averred that it flagged the Appellant for review due to the fact that the Appellant was not filing Value Added Tax (VAT) Returns despite being registered and in business. 30. The Respondent stated that its audit covered the period from 2019 to 2023 for the tax heads Withholding Tax (WHT), Value Added Tax (VAT) and Income tax. That it was not provided with documents and information to facilitate the exercise despite having made several requests. 31. That based on this situation, it carried out banking analysis and turnover test analysis to determine whether the Appellant underdeclared its income. On Corporation Tax 32. The Respondent stated that an analysis of the Appellant's bank statements disclosed that it had underdeclared the overall turnover by Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 10 of 22 Kshs. 621,646,222; with an over declaration in 2019, 2020 & 2022 and an under declaration in 2021 & 2023. 33. On costs and sales, it was stated that the Appellant’s Audited Financial Statements did not include explanatory notes providing a breakdown of the cost of sales. That it did not produce or provide ledgers, invoices, or any other form of supporting documentation to support the above costs. 34. That under the circumstances, resorted to its best judgment to determine the Appellant’s tax liability where it: a) Carried out a comparison with four comparable business/taxpayers. b) It established form its comparison that the average gross profit margin was 25% while the appellant had declared only 2%. c) It noted that the Appellant does most of its projects in Somalia, a country with a risky/ challenging/ unstable macroeconomic environment; and, based on this, the Respondent proposed to use Country Risk Premium (CRP). 35. That the latest CRP as at June 2024 compiled by New York University’s Professor Aswath Damodaran showed that Somalia Somalian' CRP is 17.55% which is the same CRP as Argentina, Cuba, Liberia, Malawi, Ukraine, Sri Lanka and Zambia. In contrast, Kenyan CRP is 9.51%. 36. That based on the above CRP, the Respondent used an average gross profit margin of a similar company in Kenya of 25%, added the CRP of 17.55% which gave a gross profit margin of 42.55% (25% +17.5); Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 11 of 22 On Value Added Tax 37. On VAT, the Respondent stated that it noted from the Appellant's bank payments/receipts that some payments were paid in Kenya from companies based in Kenya, which the Respondent concluded to be vatable and computed VAT as below; The Withholding Tax 38. The Respondent stated that a review of the Appellant’s tax returns and the records showed that the Appellant did not withhold and pay Withholding tax despite having sub-contractors’ payments as an expense in its Trial Balance; and On Pay As You Earn 39. The Respondent stated that it interrogated the Appellant's income tax PAYE returns and the salaries and wages expenses claimed in the financial statements and made the following findings: - a) There were variances between the salaries and wages declared in the Appellant's Corporation Tax Returns & the Audited Financial Statements and the Appellant's declarations in the Income Tax PAYE returns. b) It invited the Appellant to explain or reconcile these variances on several occasions, but it did not respond, forcing it to treat the variances as underdeclared income for the purposes of Income Tax PAYE. c) The directors declared no returns. d) The directors never declared income, bonus, or dividends. Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 12 of 22 Responses to the Appellant’s Ground of Appeal 40. The Respondent stated that the Appellant chose not to attach any documentary evidence to its objection or to validate the objection as required of it under Section 51(3) and 51(4) of the Tax Procedures Act, Cap. 469B. That in the letter dated 15th August 2024, it requested documents, including the Appellant's signed copies of the audited accounts, the bank account statements, general ledgers and any other relevant documents, for the period under review, and none was provided. 41. That under the circumstances there is no valid appeal before the Tribunal since the Appellant's Amended Memorandum of Appeal is founded on a purported Notice of Objection which is invalid ab initio. 42. That, in any event, the Appellant is a company incorporated in Kenya and, for the purposes of section 3(1) of the Income Tax Act, Cap. 470 and accordingly, its income is either derived or accrued in Kenya because the management and control of the affairs of the Appellant was exercised in Kenya in the period under review. 43. That by making reference to the Appellant's Audited Financial Statements, the Self-Assessment Tax Returns, and the Trial Balances, the Respondent ascertained that the Appellant derived its income in Kenya and not Somalia and thus subject to tax in Kenya. 44. The Respondent posited that the studies carried out by the New York University's Professor are sanctioned by section 31(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, Cap. 469B to the extent that Professor Aswath Damodaran's Country Risk Premium Study Report was the information available at the Respondent's disposal. Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 13 of 22 45. It stated that, on review of the Appellant's tax returns and records, the Respondent noted that the Appellant did not withhold and pay Withholding Tax, despite having sub-contractors' payments recorded as an expense in the Appellant's Trial Balance. 46. On the issue that the Appellant made payments to its sub- contractors (who are non-resident persons) without withholding WHT, the Respondent invoked section 10(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, Cap. 470 and deemed the payments as income accrued or derived in Kenya. 47. That under Section 35(1) of the Income Tax Act, Cap. 470 a person, upon payment to a non-resident person not having a permanent establishment in Kenya, in respect of payments which are chargeable to tax, is required to deduct withholding tax at the appropriate non-resident rate, which is provided for in the Third Schedule to the Income Tax Act. 48. That whereas the Appellant alleges that the drawings in the bank accounts were meant for payment to its casual labourers in Somalia, but there was no documentary evidence adduced to support this allegation or to explain the variances. It stated further that the Appellant has neither refuted nor explained the variance, nor proposed any amendment to the assessment relating to PAYE. 49. It stated further that the Appellant failed to submit its VAT self- assessment tax returns for the period under review, and thus the Respondent was justified in invoking section 29(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, Cap. 469B, and issuing a default assessment. 50. That its review of the Appellant's Bank Payments/Receipts disclosed that the Appellant made local supplies and received Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 14 of 22 payments from Kenyan companies, which should have been charged to VAT. 51. It was stated that the Appellant misunderstood the basis of the VAT assessment that the Respondent has set out in the Statement of Facts herein. 52. The Respondent supported its case with the following cases: a) Times U Sacco v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2024] KETAT 870 (KLR) b) Digital Box Limited v. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, Nairobi TAT Appeal No. 115 of 2017. c) Ocean Freight (E.A) Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2020] KEHC 8091 (KLR) d) Sea-Tech Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2024] KEHC 7343 e) Gedi Boss Trading and Transportation Ltd v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, Nairobi TAT Appeal No. E661 of 2023. f) Rebbecca Fashion (Kenya) Limited v Commissioner of investigations and Enforcement [2025] KETAT 278 (KLR) Respondent’s Prayers 53. The Respondent therefore prays that the Tribunal: a) Upholds the amended assessments of 29th November 2024 and 4th December 2024 as confirmed in the Respondent's Objection Decision letter dated 7th March 2025 as valid and in conformity with the provisions of the Law; and Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 15 of 22 b) Finds that the appeal herein is without merit and dismisses it with costs to the Respondent. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 54. Having considered the pleadings by both parties and the records before it, the Tribunal is of the view that the issues that fall for its determination are as follows: - A. Whether the Respondent’s Objcetion decision dated 7th March 2025 was justified. 55. The Respondent’s held the position that the Appellant’s objection was not supported by documents as required by law to show that it is a non-resident entity that is not taxable in Kenya. That, as such, it confirmed the assessment that it had issued 4th December 2024. 56. The Appellant argued admitted that it did not provide the documents. Nevertheless, it was its position that those documents had now been provided to show and prove that it is a non-resident entity with no tax liability in Kenya. 57. It argued further that the documents that were demanded of him were not within his possession because they were based in Somalia, which was a volatile state. It further explained that it was not in a position to provide documents that did not exist in its records because no construction contracts were entered into in Kenya. 58. Section 59 of the Tax Procedures Act (cap 469B) provides as follows regarding the Appellant’s duty to produce documents and records as may be sought by the Respondent: - Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 16 of 22 (1)For the purposes of obtaining full information in respect of the tax liability of any person or class of persons, or for any other purposes relating to a tax law, the Commissioner or an authorised officer may require any person, by notice in writing, to – (a) produce for examination, at such time and place as may be specified in the notice, any documents (including in electronic format) that are in the person's custody or under the person's control relating to the tax liability of any person; (b) furnish information relating to the tax liability of any person in the manner and by the time as specified in the notice; or (c) attend, at the time and place specified in the notice, for the purpose of giving evidence in respect of any matter or transaction appearing to be relevant to the tax liability of any person. 59. Section 56 (1) of the Tax Procedures Act (Cap 469B), which provides as follows regarding the Appellant’s burden of proof: - In any proceedings under this Part, the burden shall be on the taxpayer to prove that a tax decision is incorrect. 60. Furthermore, Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act (Cap 469A) provides as follows on the Appellant’s burden of proof: - In a proceeding before the Tribunal, the appellant has the burden of proving—(a)where an appeal relates to an assessment, that the assessment is excessive; or(b)in any Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 17 of 22 other case, that the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently. 61. The Honourable Tribunal has also previously reiterated the Appellant’s duty to discharge its burden of proof in the first instance. In Abyssinia Iron and Steel Ltd -vs- Commissioner of Customs and Border Control (TAT No. 435 of 2022), the Tribunal held as follows: - The bottom line is that once the Appellant has provided evidence that the Respondent's assessment was wrong, then the Respondent must push back and show that its assessment was not arbitrary, capricious, or imagined. The onus will then shift back to the Appellant once the Respondent has discharged its burden on a balance of convenience to discharge the prima facie case that has been presented by the Respondent. 62. In the instant appeal, the Appellant admitted that it did not provide the said records. Its defence that the said documents were either not available or that they were not in existence in Kenya is not supported by any evidence. Significantly, this defence appears to be an afterthought because the Appellant had the chance to provide these explanations at any of the following points but it did not do so: a) When it was served with notice under Section 59 of the TPA on 15th August 2024. b) When it was requested to provide documents vide a letter dated 23rd October 2024. c) When it was served with emails dated 17/09/24, 2/10/24 and 18/10/2024 requesting it to provide documents. Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 18 of 22 d) When it filed its objection to the assessment order dated 2 nd December 2024, wherein it could have explained the absence of the said documents. 63. Its current explanation at the appellate stage, is thus not tenable, and in any event the Tribunal is prohibited from considering explanations that were never provided to the Commissioner at this appellate stage as was explained in the High Court in the recent decision of Commissioner of Investigation & Enforcement v Wamunyinyi [2026] KEHC 379(KLR) where it was held as follows” “Guided by the above, I find that the Tribunal erred in law by admitting and relying on evidence that was not placed before the Commissioner at the objection stage. This error goes to the heart of the objection review process and undermines the Commissioner’s statutory mandate to assess tax based on information provided by the taxpayer.” 64. The Appellant was thus behoved to provide these explanations in its objection notice and or in response to the emails and letters that were sent to it. Its failure to respond and to provide the same explanation of relevance and in access to the said documents was its greatest undoing. 65. Additionally, the Appellant’s application, in its submission to be allowed to adduce additional documents under Section 13 of the TPA and Article 47 and 159 of the Constitution, is a misnomer. 66. Submissions are not pleadings and cannot be used to make formal applications which require the Respondent to file its application. If the Appellant was in real need to be granted leave to file its appeal Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 19 of 22 out of time, then the proper thing would have been to file an Application seeking leave to file additional documents under Section 13(3) of the TAT Act. This was not done, and the Tribunal in the present circumstances cannot admit the said documents at this stage. 67. The irony in this appeal is that the Appellant filed an application dated 11th November 2025 to be allowed to amend its appeal, but it failed to include the prayer that it currently seeks in the said application. 68. The outcome of the above analysis is that the Appellant did not provide relevant and persuasive evidence to make the Respondent reconsider its assessments. This failure to provide positive evidence means that the Respondent’s assessment, which often has a presumptive notion of correctness, has not been impeached, as was explained in Mugo -vs- Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (TAT E918 of 2024) KETAT 374 (KLR) where it held as follows: As noted hereinabove, the Appellant failed to adduce positive documents to demonstrate that the Respondent’s decision was incorrect. Consequently, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Respondent’s decision was justified and that the Appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof contrary to Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act, 2013 (TATA) and Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act; thus, the appeal is not successful.” 69. The Appellant’s failure to prove that it had provided the documents that had been requested of it, or that the documents requested of it were not relevant, or to table any other sort of evidence before the Commissioner and share that evidence with the Tribunal Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 20 of 22 means that it has failed to discharge the burden of proof that has been placed on it under Section 30 of the TAT Act. DISPOSITION 70. The upshot of the foregoing analysis is that the Tribunal finds and holds that the appeal lacks merit and shall proceed to make the following Orders: a) The appeal be and is hereby dismissed. b) The Respondent’s Objcetion decision dated 7th March 2025 be and is hereby upheld. c) Each party shall bear its costs. 71. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this ………31st …..…... day of ……… July....… 2026 ..........................………………………. DR. RODNEY ODHIAMBO OLUOCH CHAIRPERSON .…..….……………………. ..…. ………………………. DR. ERICK KOMOLO CYNTHIA B. MAYAKA MEMBER MEMBER Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 21 of 22 ……………………………… ABDULLAHI DIRIYE MEMBER Judgement TAT No. E278 of 2025 Docol Construction Rehabilitation & Trading Company Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Page Limited V 22 of 22