Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Tax Law [2025] ZASCA 20

Aveng Mining Shafts and Underground v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1192/2023)

Aveng Mining Shafts and Underground v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1192/2023) [2025] ZASCA 20 (17 March 2025)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1192/2023
Judges
Zondi, Keightley, Koen, Coppin, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Aveng was not entitled to deduct input tax on accommodation and food expenses for project employees under s 17(2)(a)(i)(bb) of the Value-Added Tax Act. The Court found that Aveng's enterprise does not involve making taxable supplies of entertainment, and the entertainment expenses were not acquired for that purpose. Furthermore, Aveng did not recover the charges for entertainment directly from its employees, nor did it establish that all direct and indirect costs were covered by charges to clients. The statutory exceptions permitting input tax deductions…

Source excerpt

  • Value Added Tax Act
  • Input Tax Deduction
  • Entertainment Expenses
  • Statutory Interpretation
Read case analysis
Tax Law [2023] ZATC 14

SAMU v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1788)

SAMU v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (VAT 1788) [2023] ZATC 14; 86 SATC 406 (30 August 2023)

Court
Tax Court
Case number
VAT 1788
Judges
A Makume, B Mathibela, M Mahlare

The court found that the appellant was not entitled to claim input tax on accommodation and meal expenses for project-specific employees, as these constituted entertainment under section 17(2)(a) of the VAT Act and the appellant did not meet the statutory exceptions. The appellant did not charge employees for these expenses, nor was it in the business of supplying entertainment. The precedent set in AB (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for SARS was applied, confirming that such expenses are entertainment for VAT purposes. However, the court accepted that the appellant's error in claiming input tax was…

Source excerpt

  • Input Tax Deductions
  • Entertainment Expenses
  • Understatement Penalty
  • Vat Act Interpretation
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.