Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
BCJ v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2024/8) [2025] ZATC 7 (23 May 2025)
The Tax Court held that SARS gave inadequate reasons for a GAAR assessment because it did not explain why the arrangement was said to occur in a business context.
Henque 3935 CC t/a PQ Clothing Outlet v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (846/2023) [2025] ZASCA 56 (12 May 2025)
The SCA held that income tax and VAT liabilities arising before business rescue are pre-commencement claims and may not be set off against later VAT refunds.
Pear (Proprietary) Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 46080) [2024] ZATC 19 (5 December 2024)
The court held that SARS was not entitled to issue the additional assessment for the 2017 tax year, as the three-year prescription period under section 99(1) of the Tax Administration Act had expired. SARS failed to discharge the onus of proving that any misrepresentation or non-disclosure by the Appellant caused the non-assessment of the full amount of tax within the prescribed period. The Appellant's tax return and subsequent correspondence disclosed the nature of the insurance premium and policy, and SARS's own verification process did not result in an adjustment within the three-year peri…
Source excerpt
Company A (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 46204; VAT 22494) [2024] ZATC 14 (6 November 2024)
Tax Court dismissed Company A’s bid to separate issues in a tax appeal, finding the PRASA judgments did not by themselves dispose of the assessments.
South Africa Custodial Services (Louis Trichardt) (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (A291/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 821 (21 August 2024)
The court held that Cloete J’s 2017 order was a final decision under the parties’ anti-prescription agreement and that the assessment period had not expired.
Trust Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT 45673) [2024] ZATC 15 (17 July 2024)
The Tax Court dismissed a taxpayer trust’s appeal, upholding SARS assessments on rental income, capital gains base cost, penalties, interest, and costs.
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v M (A5036/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 769 (6 July 2023)
SARS appeal upheld in a tax dispute over whether unexplained bank deposits were income or loan repayments. Most assessed amounts were confirmed as taxable income.
Lutzkie v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services [2023] ZAGPPHC 525; A72/2021 (21 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed a tax appeal, finding the taxpayer failed to prove a R1.67 million payment was a non-taxable loan repayment and upholding a 90% penalty.
Henque 3935 CC t/a PQ Clothing Outlet v Commissioner for the SA Revenue Service (2020/35790) [2023] ZAGPJHC 234; 2023 (6) SA 260 (GJ); 86 SATC 136 (7 March 2023)
The court held that, under section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act read with sections 1, 92, and 96 of the Tax Administration Act, income tax only becomes due and payable when an assessment or additional assessment is made and issued to the taxpayer, specifying the payment date. In this case, the additional assessment for the 2017 tax year was made and issued after Henque commenced business rescue, with the payment date falling post-commencement. Accordingly, the liability constituted a post-commencement debt or finance under the Companies Act, not a pre-business rescue debt. The statutory morator…
Source excerpt
Taxpayer B v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT45710) [2022] ZATC 10; 85 SATC 388 (29 November 2022)
The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to rely on the new ground of appeal in its rule 32 statement because the new ground constitutes a challenge to the gross income amount of the disputed assessment, which was never specifically objected to under rule 7. An objection to the deduction amount is not equivalent to an objection to the gross income amount, and rule 32(3) prohibits new grounds of objection against parts or amounts not previously objected to. The Court distinguished the present matter from ITC 1912 and Matla Coal, finding that in those cases the new grounds related to t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
