By Sam Alfan.

Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) has revealed how former shareholders, company representatives, and foreign staff withdrew Sh604 million from Oki General Trading Limited’s bank accounts.

In a case where the company is challenging KRA’s Sh827 million tax demand, the taxman told the Tax Appeals Tribunal that Anil Kumar Ramchandani serves as the company’s head office representative, while Jatin Aswani and Jayesh Soni are foreign staff members.

Honey Khatwani, a former director of the company and other employees are alleged to have withdrawn a total of Sh604 million during the audit period.
The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes has asked the Tribunal to dismiss Oki General’s appeal and uphold the tax demand.

KRA said it analyzed bank statements from Ecobank and Absa, noting several withdrawals made by staff members including Khatwani, Ramchandani, Aswani, and Soni, among others.

The tax authority added that a review of employment contracts for Wadhwani, Aswani, Khatwani, and Soni revealed that they received remuneration which was not subjected to PAYE as required under Section 5 of the Income Tax Act (ITA).

Oki General Trading Limited has since conceded to owing Sh3,926,184.35 in unpaid PAYE from employee salaries.

During a meeting held on February 17, 2025, KRA noted that, aside from the foreign employees mentioned, Oki General also had other local staff, including Winrose Syomiti and Purity Muoki (receptionists), Fred and Daniel (drivers), as well as Harish Choudhary, Deepak Rajoriya, and Gorvit Bhati.

KRA told the Tribunal that Oki General failed to provide key documents such as the company organogram, staff list, and employment contracts, making it impossible to confirm the employment status of several individuals, including the receptionists, drivers, and other listed employees.

The authority further stated that the PAYE computation on staff salaries covered the period October 2024 to March 2025, not September 2025 as claimed by the company. It added that Oki General failed to provide a comprehensive staff listing, payslips, or proof of actual salaries paid, preventing KRA from verifying the claimed reimbursements or confirming whether salary deductions were made.

According to KRA, Oki General did not provide an asset register or supporting documents such as proof of ownership, making it impossible to confirm whether capital items purchased for employees remained company property.

KRA maintained that Oki General admitted that employee salaries were not accounted for PAYE purposes, meaning workers were paid their full contractual amounts without tax deductions.

The Tribunal also heard that Oki General claimed payments made to Bhambhani Kumar, Maniash, and Muntaz were for services and goods delivered to the company. However, the firm failed to provide invoices or supporting documents, leading KRA to classify the payments as employee remuneration and subject them to PAYE.

KRA further noted that Oki General said payments made to Satnam Limited were unauthorized and may have involved misappropriation of funds by a former director. However, the company failed to provide a forensic audit report or reconciliation records, leaving KRA unable to verify the claim.

According to the authority, Soni and Aswani are both employees of Oki General and listed as directors of Satnam Limited on its iTax profile. Therefore, payments to Satnam Limited were treated as staff drawings and subjected to PAYE.

On corporation tax, KRA said Oki General’s claim that a 20% profit margin was unrealistic—arguing instead for a 3% to 5% range—was not supported by evidence and was therefore disregarded.

KRA also noted that although Oki General claimed to have shared its closing stock analysis and audited financial statements, these documents were never submitted.