Rwenzori Bottling Company Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 21 of 2021)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Tribunal held that when computing the 30% limit on deductible interest under Section 25(3) of the Income Tax Act, depreciation and amortization must be added back to chargeable income as expressly required by Section 25(5). The plain language of the statute requires that TEBITDA be the sum of gross income less allowable deductions (except interest), plus depreciation, plus amortization. The respondent's interpretation that depreciation and amortization should not be added back because they are already reflected in chargeable income was rejected as contrary to the clear statutory language. The additional assessment was set aside.
Outcome
Application allowed; additional tax assessment of Shs. 76,159,455 set aside
Facts
Rwenzori Bottling Company Limited, a member of the Coca Cola Beverages African group, produces bottled water. For the fiscal year ending 31 December 2019, it incurred interest expenses of Shs. 7,922,420,000 and claimed a deduction on the basis that this was less than 30% of its Tax Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortization (TEBITDA) of Shs. 42,034,830,379. The applicant computed TEBITDA by taking chargeable income of Shs. 17,639,429,990, adding back interest expense of Shs. 7,922,420,000, and adding back depreciation and amortization of Shs. 16,472,980,389. On 4 December 2020, Uganda Revenue Authority rejected the deduction, alleging the applicant overstated its interest expense by Shs. 253,864,847 by incorrectly computing TEBITDA. URA computed TEBITDA as Shs. 25,561,850,509 by excluding depreciation and amortization from the calculation, and issued an additional assessment of Shs. 76,159,455. The applicant objected, arguing that Section 25(5) of the Income Tax Act expressly requires depreciation and amortization to be added back. URA maintained that adding back depreciation and amortization constitutes double counting because these items are already reflected in chargeable income.
Issues
- Whether the applicant is liable to pay the additional tax assessed of Shs. 76,159,455.
- Whether depreciation and amortization should be added back when computing Tax Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortization (TEBITDA) under Section 25(5) of the Income Tax Act.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- Additional assessment of Shs. 76,159,455 set aside.
- Costs awarded to the applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
Cases cited (3)
- Mangin v Inland Revenue Commissioner [1971] AC 738
- Cape Brandy Syndicate v IRC [1921] 1 KB 64
- Uganda Revenue Authority v Siraie Hassan Kajura (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2015)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.