CTA Case No. 1346 (Decision)
11�. t' U I'H ;\C 01 TOE PHlLll"PJN r.l' COURT (J)F TAX AftPE.AL8 QUEZQN CITY �1 L 8 10 0 r r 131
P�.C:t.:I Oii .... c� . c o. 13 6 2 � . , 955 ( �P "" 1, P� lt. . _r,.� ith n u I ll<). a t nt of 1ts r1 n-e1 l or 1 55 1 ' d 2,?; ., ( Xh. � 9f r .). ncom- t X of id p � 53. 2 f '\ \.1 1 nd - ~ 1 1 t 1 )6 1on b j ' � ry 1 19S t r inv _t1 t .1ng t r turn or t~ ;. cl pt . r .o, 1955, & n .ss :s tr or :p ' .. 75E, re urt 0 1ts a.ceu 1 t d urplu� 1nt to lov .r bl ... . ~� n .... � 2,7~ ") t u � � �� . . . . . .. ..�.. � � . . . .-======- �~~~~~,..... � .. . � � ~ tv 1 . fio1 ney t x rch 21, 191 � D o ii-3 � r. 1,. .n e , p . 16, CT c. ) . l ~ r11 21, 1961 1 p t tioner. t o gh its ud tor, t il� ith r &pond nt 1 n t 1 prot s i th l l � Y nd V l1di 1 0 t � .X te en 1 ad c 11 ion ne of n t h f ( 1) 132
133 ..
� 1� ,1 '. � c- c ? 0 ' t c .a 7(1) 0 1
, c urt o T 1 iv 1 w. b . aston r o lnt& rl&l Rnv�~rn11 ot ... ti r r � in ne U:e C ()f othe:r la at1 �1 14 . r ~ta isi ,s' 1, t ~ n or on th g in t nd t the� ss .asment ... lf' fs ., s... 3~m r Q ln rn . ~ $1. ' � 2 9~ J nu ' " 1 �� .P' � oll cto or nt 1 1vt.t ?nil �. 31 ) � ';'~bEn et! o r Q\.HJ ion~ l i ity o r ~onden �s a 1' 1. 1 ncr r u 1 to r.c ... n1 't ,. Js ut .d t. n l r h t th or , thf! rig t to ppe$1 to t .$ Co r t1pon .� �C sm nt, s1 po l nt Ot'l d! sp c on 1 t) of � . 125� . _) y t I , or 1 o l� 13 5 �
.. 6 po t d n� 1 of ll?'S81� 1 co tnx t 1t �l th n tt - I ct� rt n d pjt~ h t1 ion� , t 1 t ntam~trur.ft � t ele r 1nc1ic ion o b � t " . g in t t e d ,t"1<d nc J.ne 1 t h 0 he (2/ y a t o ot it Pl' t 611. 1-se t that, tt tax- h� t� C: le $ t 1d T t0 s t ..... t1 � r ... al .... e ue t t . l' 13 6
� ... �1 7 1 oe 1 t 1 11, �1 - 0 t 1o.n ( ) t' � 0 0 t 137
o. 1 y 1, 1 1 ( ., � t n1 alr 3 1 or t 1 c .r v ... y 11n 1 () of � - 1 3 8 ,I,� '
13f+6. b � s. w t t p tl . ' th .t p t1- l' :n � b oa � f 1 h ViO t1 t Seet1on 25' 0 0 ' crt t b o 1 heo o � ! i c r in 1 'U ' 1 t t1 q tion ot �r ct and th c:1 rc eonst1tut1ng it u . ......,..~..,. ( C 1s. 1 r t Int ern ' t l., b o se it ~. )� r ( u' 1. H .rd- eri ~ char re Co. v. Coul" ot Tax p$.- ela, et 1. , G. 'R . N � 1 2"J , J nua r 28 � 1961 ) 4 ! t 'P t be ..tiiA:~~ 1 ati f t oril i f n t eon- on it od v . .Phil. 104 De ) to~ v � .o n of th 3 � <1 inoo -C t l"o, 18 1. 84; lli> ' � e. 116c , 1 4. . J: 139��
� D CISIOI- � "TA� S: .,. .NO. 1 0 wi 1 r-� r tX 'll � -l' b l' eno s 0 1t r ra �t ( . ."r u h �1 ) 1' t orr. e: 1 d 10 th t nlus, would l. u 1 '1 0. fr al- ! on h r 0 ' v ben n od ,.)( i re of' ".'� the ... ,. ' th t ~Q ,,/o 25' or th � Co t1 n bli ot l)l' ~ 'Tt �Orl h bPe u .~ I. .r r h 1'". 1 r . 22 ) � 1 Unto.~ 'r t conVin r 1 t spnnd � l'! t ~b. o t Co rt a y c I. i orr~ . 'l 1:c. � !}, - 1 t ion of d nyfn �oner's J1J"C't st c~ h . (}) dld fraud 1 t,. 1 n r*s 1n... co X r tu d cl rati n. b ond elo u n r u th l1C r u ~d t " 'll ul . ten to !; 14 0
. 14t
.' .. , t l ~M t Jl ly 1 � t 11 �t tion tor inem !ftent il t'i v ( ,5) Q f'il i lit r n o Jo.. 331' or the i flU lie of t ~ R1 a : . m � o J u, u. � o. \74.3 , 13, � 196lt. ) { 1 or~ p$ �1t1o et .t1l .d i e 1n<Jo ~ to 1{),,.re u for t e fi l y 3 0 ,. 1 b.t 0 29 , 19~0 .. .r.. 1� � u -� by r pon~ on t b 1~' live (!j) y t t1l1) ... ri ot lb .) n 0 tlo . ~ )l"'4t 1 at a o � ' s �� t ;, 14 2
� 13 " c 10 nt of t � he In n f 75 ' 7. is rs d. Aecordi t n tteot. �ithou t o , o.r 0� .. I0 /L__. J ~' lA!� Of L. Vrt !iC� ~ A o at J d r.'i nJd Umal1 id ot t part . ,, 1 4 3
More in CTA Decisions
- GIC PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY, GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10017)
- CTA Case No. 6203 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 6203)
- CTA Case No. EB CRIM-20 (Decision)(CTA Case No. EB CRIM-20)
- CTA Case No. 1463 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 1463)
- CTA Case No. 1017 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 1017)
- CHARTIS TECHNOLOGY & OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (PHILIPPINES) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (consolidated with CTA Case No. 8498, 8534 & 8581)(CTA Case No. 8432)
- THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLAVER, represented by CARYL DEE LUKBAN v. PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION (PGMC)(CTA Case No. AC-183)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EL PASO PHILIPPINES ENERGY COMPANY, INC.(CTA Case No. EB 1319)
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.