CTA Case No. 1858 (Amended Decision)
'\!<:PUBLIC OJ' THE P HILIPPIN F..t COURT OF T AX APPJ.U.LS QUEZON CITY t. � � � � ~� � ~ � � � X .arab. c, 1 / Ot. ot h rollo l>urtn ...t1 n, ru t0 $ 1� ,a ~r "� .4 tb . r .. ? 237
J 238
3 ' 239
. � �c. .. ard r fr .. ;,. Cl tC' ,.., f.; l i 1. � � � 1 '� t,J . h 1 -�h n ull}�r ,, t W��nts ~n vv ,, nonv t1 E;i. r �c of Co i lA f'1 t ! ' r~.l.,;,; r or l s <-.tt I! g 't' I' rr t 0 t .. - orp� ft ( De. "'1 ��0 'r � . .,1 1Q..'' ) I ~~ � � . ' u ,. o ., v .. ,# l �,o .. ... 2 u: I . 0 lG>." 4-<UX,a.! ,,.... (') e' ....... nt c~. 11 -~ C� ri ~t t.o 3' 1'. :Jr. ' !f"( c ~\'I') l y' ich : -~ 240 (
t.tl lf . lt 'tb _ result~ P, the enact .e:n't ct the cectlon al.t-6 ot h T Co b .n c �nt wee ot y t pl'aeed "nil r eat �f or th r � 1nerals� or " 1n~r�al product �� 1t wa not x . pt fro othn.G1~8~6reorntaagi~ tax imposed by 'e t i Cooe., art<! , �th r tor ,. taxa l s � n tact~ . pr c � C)hus .,. c~ ..nt 1 now � tton .24-6 or he Int~r.n 1 F van-e Co b:y virtue .r� n publio ct t~o �. 1299 wh:tch ook tt e � CY~~t � mtn ral OclUot� it 1s e.a pt r~o� s t x. und ~ so~t:ton 1 � ( c) ot th Revenu Cod .-) ) ln rreot '-.- r� fun � bl th $ 1 t e the r1 bt t o wh cb h a ot pr~ crl �d yet ~ ~be ea on for the x mpt!on r tnPJ:'al product fro � salos t xe ls expr s. in n. Ph!l&m ~ 1rt1n.g, lno. v �. l ~on .. ~lec~ o Dom:1ngo1 Comm sst on r ot lnt .rn l RevEtn � . C Ces No. 939, un 29t 196f.t. ! .n th1e l:at.tgu .. t ' 'he 1~rals � r.~ . n r 1 prod ots vhieb re ~ . mpt from otr n s al tax u.n. er Sec t Re v .n e ion 18 8(c�) th~ Code ~re thos~ wn:teh I' � ob ained froo 1n~r 1 land and are subject to th i.ning tu provided in aitl VlT or th. even12 Codtl. Tbe re son tor th exe ~t1o~ is that the minin t . x � � apptt .r to b . d quate & a�:JDeans or taxing th ni:n 1 ~.ustry . ' !'- r ~ > 1' ' ' t"~ 241
... I tl r al ) 1 ;, rt 4 ot 242
o�n t� t ne. � - to r of Intfl na n nu :n h C'-J� . o. ol! .� . 1.- 5 oa, .. ..... \ t 1 71.J' ct l � t -tr tt di l 11 p py r t � l1 1� nd 18 0 1 it~ 0 prod ct t 1 u t.r � fl1bu 1 1 t th va ct g,r t ... .or f t L5 ' r 0 ur 1n 195 W �S la of t nufa. t re t Q (<! t n l �� $ a 1ly 4 f'J 1 � 1 .. of \' 24 3
1 ,.. t r c n nt t , 1. ) r - 1 � � - 59 0 t� � t t x fr 1-
1 ,.. t :la 7 .1 r � � 1 0 r � no '� .;. f t 0 r � tor u 1' � i , , 1 '1 � 245
More in CTA Decisions
- CTA Case No. 4592 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 4592)
- RCD REALTY MARKETING CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8271)
- DOHLE SHIPMANAGEMENT PHISL. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8960)
- ARC INVESTORS, INC v. CITY OF DAVAO and HON. RODRIGO S. RIOLA, in his official capacity as the City Treasurer of Davao City(CTA Case No. AC-153)
- AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 381)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.(CTA Case No. EB 2202)
- ORICA PHILIPPINES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9647)
- SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC., v. COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 2144)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.