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.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal upheld a tax decision against Aggreko International Projects Limited, rejecting claims for head office costs, capital allowance calculations, and related penalties.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania dismissed Tanga Cement’s appeal, upholding disallowance of a payment to its former distributor and underestimated tax interest.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Unilever Tea Tanzania Limited’s tax appeal, holding it had not proved double disallowance of management entertainment costs or improper computation.
The Court of Appeal upheld disallowance of interest expenses, holding the taxpayer failed to prove arm’s-length pricing and that one ground was non-appealable as factual.
The Court of Appeal held that Vodacom was not entitled to 100% capital allowance or accrual-basis interest deductions under the repealed tax law, and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Kilombero Sugar Company Ltd’s tax appeal, holding that the Tribunal had not misapprehended the evidence or law.
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof by not providing sufficient evidence (such as supporting invoices and proof of payment) to show that the disallowed direct sales costs were wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of income. The issue before the lower tribunals was whether the assessment was erroneous, not the procedural compliance with section 97(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant did not properly raise or pursue the procedural issue at the appropriate stages, nor did it seek to adduce fresh evidence as permitted by law. Therefore, the decision to disallow…
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to show that the disallowance of direct sales costs was erroneous, as no cogent evidence (such as supporting invoices or proof of payment) was provided at the appropriate stages before the TRAB or TRAT. The requirement for the Commissioner to provide reasons under section 97(c) of the Income Tax Act did not relieve the appellant of the obligation to substantiate its claims once the assessment was finalized and appealed. The TRAT was correct to uphold the disallowance.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof by not providing cogent evidence (supporting invoices and proof of payment) to show that the disallowance of direct sales costs was erroneous; the issue of non-compliance with section 97(c) was not properly raised at the relevant stages, and the Tribunal and Board were correct to uphold the respondent's assessment.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal of Tanzania upheld tax disallowances for a bank, holding that claimed deductions needed evidential support and that the appeal lacked merit.
Explore more
