cta_resolution CTA Case No. 87578757 2016-05-23

BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION BASES CONVERSION AND CTA CASE NO. 8757 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, -versus- Memb ers: Castaneda, Jr., Chairperson Casanova, and Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, MAY Z 3 2016 Respondent. / r- )(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - ~- - - - - - J{ RES0 LUTI 0 N Jo : 'J � < � "--' COTANGCO-MANALASTAS,J.: For resolution IS petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration/ Clarification (Re: 15 March 2016 Decision), filed on March 31, 2016. Respondent, despite notice, failed to file her comment. In its motion, petitioner prays that the Court modify or issue a clarification on the March 15, 2016 Decision to eJ{pressly include in its dispositive portion BCDA's eJ{emption from payment of CWT on the sales proceeds of condominium units in the Serendra Project. Petitioner is correct that the issue of its eJ{emption from creditable withholding t~ was discussed in the body of the decision. This was necessary for the complete resolution of the case. Petitioner is further correct that the denial of the petition was on factual grounds due to petitioner's failure to show that the amount claimed for refund has not been utilized. However, the Court finds no reason to modify the dispositive portion of the assailed decision. The instant case y involves a claim for refund of creditable withholding t~ which petitioner paid under protest. The issue on petitioner's

RESOLUTION CTA case No. 8757 exemption was merely raised for the determination of petitioner's entitlement to its claimed refund. Thus, the Court fully disposed of the instant case when the petition for review, and therefore the claim for refund, was denied. WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration/ Clarification (Re: 15 March 2016 Decision) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ~ 9.c.c:.t--~~. Q CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice JUANITO C. CASTANE!f'A, JR. Associate Justice

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.