CTA Case No. 305 (Decision)
~-- --�� ~.I'JLIC 01" TH'f! PHlLl:t"t"'''"' � ~URT OF r X A.P!J . .AN X .. ~ .... - ' .. ,.... '.�' . . X- � ; ; of t - ._ ... X n ... c:r
'- '3 - - � 3� � � 95 r' 0 ... .. ri ei 0 tl 0 r n p10 d nt or l l 5t ct c t 01 - ti ' o ntn n r iv. 1 � t ro s c d1 c l t ,1 0t Lo 0 r x- b� v't tt 0 ort r dir ctl et 0 t 0- o r II -. r d .clu d 1 t t1 r 0 Ja 1 t 1, 0 ic rt ' l 0 l h - t 1 tr s 1 wi ,., u ~t ul ' d 20 l95'5, tl si- � r1 1 c co p� cl , -�
0 .... o� ; � � 5'+3 0� - 0 'c t 1 c 10 1 1 c 1 (l -.. t1 n r 953. t h 1 1o r cl 1 it 0 1 t 1 on 1 1n- 1 t nr r 10" 1t ; rt l n- d to 1 1 ' t n 950, 9 0 � 7. 0 ' 1+7.0 ' 0 1t ' ' s ct e � ' 49 6 , t 0 t � �� t it
It
�� �~ 305 - 5- � tt 1 ~ ... 0 1 0d tX ll 1 c1 � r y 19;~0 in in r r re v 1 nt t lt, of t 1 d in �t h X� 1v y ti 1 t f J .) 1 t to t 1 ri t on.t th 1. 1 0 � t n � 1 sc t r- c 'Y for th ty r s t t 1 ir 1 04
�� ly h - 6- th t 1 iv b 1. . . A- ft u f ~ i t. h ot g :r - 0 1 G ic1 ~!!: 1, r 1r t 1 105
# 106
.. -- h � t 11 - ), t � ' 0 ' t 1 r c l. � l J2 1 1 1d 0 v t - 1 3 0; . , c:l le ., 517 i� 1. 0 7 �
.t .. . 1 T' ... ~r v nuc , J 1, d l" der � ' . ... {;<j . ' � J.~,.� iss � or . .. '-'� � ' uJ ' 1, � t t .t .} t .. t ~ c ti r ct tt ti
/ l .~ - o� ";'- � � 51+3 o� -1 tn ~o .... i i
0 0� 2- id l' l 0 111
~' (.; ,. � 3 5' 3- - l3 ,_ rt ... c ., �' � u , l95'tJ) "" .. t - 1 1 0 L .. r . t l Cl th .... f ....l l .0 1. Ct e ti 0 n ... v� .:'o � ...1 250 v , 12~ 5 0 7 " t l :n � '� � � 1-~ 12 o. . 2c, �rt .- . ao. I ,. ' t 7. rtr tl t 1 ' v- ... ., 'or o� a 1! c l t � t .t w i e . t 95~ 1r t:t � t:l 9:;3 , Cf 1 Ou.L t ' i i ~d tt �� Ii r0
, ..... - l .. �t � 3 5 ~3 .r ... t t ' � 7� 6, {) 1 � � ' \...0 c 0 2 5: t , "t t 1 t6 � l) a v l 11 t \I 113
l -. "o� ;�- � t Hl rl tt � 0 0 � � t� � l�'
More in CTA Decisions
- TAKENAKA CORPORATION-PHILIPPINE BRANCH v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 6886)
- CTA Case No. 4885 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 4885)
- ESTATE/HEIRS OF SIDRONICO S. DALAPAG and NECITAS E. DALAPAG represented by ANABEL DALAPAG-ACENAS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE HERMENO A. PALAMINE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REVENUE REGION NO. 16(CTA Case No. 10039)
- NOVARTIS HEALTHCARE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10900)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED(CTA Case No. EB 1861)
- MELVIN H. CALATA v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 11200)
- BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10097)
- BANPAK INCORPORATED v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 11284)
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.