Sars v pretoria east motors pty ltd

Author: ebhm

August undefined, 2024

Webb20 juni 2014 · Revenue Service v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd (291/12) [2014] ZASCA 91. The taxpayer operated a car dealership in Pretoria. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) conducted an audit on the taxpayer in respect of its 2000 to 2004 years of assessments, and as a result raised various additional assessments in WebbCSARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd - (291/12) [2014] ZASCA 91 - 12 June 2014 ... Author: SARS. Revenue – Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 and Value Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 – assessment to additional income tax and value added tax – appeal against dismissal of objection by taxpayer – onus of proof – evidence ...

High Court: 2024-2024 South African Revenue Service

Webb7 sep. 2024 · The Supreme Court of Appeal recently handed down judgment in the Commissioner for South African Revenue Services v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd (291/12) [2014] ZASCA 91.The main issues in dispute concerned the taxpayer's liability for income tax and VAT for the 2000 – 2004 periods. WebbSARS Act. [4] The first respondent is ,LPIa company with limited liability. It is an investment and property-owning company duly registered as such in terms of the laws of the … rv water line fittings 1/2

HOW TO WEATHER THE TAX STORM - LinkedIn

WebbIn the case of SARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd (291/12) [2014] ZASCA 91 (1), the Supreme Court of Appeal held the following with regards to the onus of proof resting with the taxpayer. “11] As best as can be discerned, Ms Victor’s approach was that if she did not understand something she was free to raise Webbout in Commissioner South African Revenue Services v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd:8 “It is important at the outset to emphasise, as Curlewis JA did in Bailey v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1933 AD 204 at 220, that the Tax Court is not a court of appeal in the ordinary sense; it is a court of revision. Webb6 feb. 2024 · With reference to the Pretoria East Motors judgment, the High Court indicated that a taxpayer is afforded an opportunity to respond to a tax audit in terms of section … is create react app good for production

Commissioner South African Revenue Services v Pretoria

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA …

WebbSee SARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd (291/12) [2014] ZASCA 91 at para [6] and CIR v SA Mutual Unit Trust Management Co Ltd 1990 (4) SA 529 (A) at 538D. The onus lay on the appellant to show on a balance of probabilities that it received a discount rather than a commission from the airlines. WebbThe taxpayer operated a car dealership in Pretoria. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) conducted an audit on the taxpayer in respect of its 2000 to 2004 years of … is create mod on 1.12.2Webbreiterated in Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd 2014 (5) SA 231 (SCA) para 8: „It is so that the taxpayer‟s ipse dixit will not lightly be regarded as decisive. But it must be considered together with all of the other evidence in the case. And, given the unfavourable is create studio worth it

"Webb7. The criticism of SARS’ practice of audit and issuing of assessment without proper application of their minds is well documented in Commissioner South African Revenue Services v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd (291/12) [2014] ZASCA 91; [2014] 3 All SA 266 (SCA); 2014 (5) SA 231 (SCA) (12 June 2014) and no further comment is required " - Sars v pretoria east motors pty ltd

Sars v pretoria east motors pty ltd

FEBRUARY 2016 – ISSUE 197 CONTENTS - SAICA

WebbThe decision to appoint a third party is considered an "administrative action" in terms of PAJA (Contract Support Services (Pty) Ltd v SARS [1998] 61 SATC 338 349). … Webb7 juni 2024 · According to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd (291/12) [20140 ZASCA 91 (12 June 2014): The raising of an additional assessment must be based on proper grounds for believing that, in the case of VAT, there has been an under declaration of supplies and hence of output tax, or an unjustified deduction of …

Did you know?

Webb1 apr. 2003 · [1] The Respondent, Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd (the taxpayer), an authorised dealer on behalf of Toyota South Africa (Toyota SA), conducted business as … WebbSARS must give proper reasons and have proper grounds NOVEMBER 2014 – ISSUE 182. The Tax Administration Act No. 28 of 2011 ... it is also appropriate to consider the judgment in Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd [2014] ZASCA 91.

Webb10 feb. 2015 · In SARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd it was held as follows: The raising of an additional assessment must be based on proper grounds for believing that, in the case of VAT, there has been an under declaration of supplies and hence of output tax, or an unjustified deduction of input tax. Webbreiterated in Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd 2014 (5) SA 231 (SCA) para 8: „It is so that the taxpayer‟s ipse dixit will not lightly be …

WebbSARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd supra 205 Referred to in section 12 206 If a party or a person authorised to appear on the party’s behalf fails to appear before the tax court at the time and place appointed for the hearing of the appeal the tax court may decide the appeal,207 upon— the request of the party that does appear; and WebbThe conduct on the part of SARS in assigning a nil value to the shares in question raises important questions, and it is regrettable that this did not come under closer critical scrutiny by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Since the judgment in SARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd [2014] 76 SATC 293, it has

Webb19 apr. 2024 · The validity of these assessments may well be called into question. After all, as was ruled by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd [2014] 3 All SA 266 (SCA):

WebbSARS – South African Revenue Services 4. IT – Income Tax 5. DBCM – De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd 6. RG – Redrow Group 7. CSAR – Commissioner for South African Revenue Service 8. VAT ... 3.8 COMMISSIONER, SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES V PRETORIA EAST MOTORS (PTY) LTD ... is create tv on rokuWebb13 juli 2024 · According to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd (291/12) [20140 ZASCA 91 (12 June 2014): “The raising of an additional assessment must be based on proper grounds... is create studio pro freeWebbSince the judgment in SARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd [2014] 76 SATC 293, it has been clear that SARS must have a basis for issuing an assessment and cannot issue … rv water line frozenWebb2.2 C:SARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd Pretoria East Motors was an authorised dealer on behalf of Toyota South Africa (‘Toyota SA’) and conducted business as a car … rv water leak repair costWebb15 aug. 2014 · In the Pretoria East Motors case the taxpayer carried on business as a car dealership in Pretoria selling new and used vehicles. During June and July 2003 SARS officials conducted a detailed audit of the taxpayer’s affairs covering the period 2000 to 2004. In concluding the audit SARS issued additional income tax and value-added tax … is create tv on youtube tvWebbIn the preceding judgment of SARS v Pretoria East Motors (Pty) Ltd (291/12) [2014] ZASCA 91 (12 June 2014) (par 11) the Supreme Court of Appeal remarked as follows: rv water line blow out winterizationWebb30 mars 2024 · 11 March 2024. Cell C Pty (Ltd) v CSARS (30959/2024) Customs & Excise Act, 1964. Customs and excise – Appeal and review: Whether section 47 (9) ( e ), permitting as it does a wide appeal, precludes a court from jurisdiction to order SARS to produce a record of decision for review under Uniform Rule 53. 11 March 2024. is created during the time period in study