CTA Case No. 1728 (Decision)
- .. ~EPU'BblC O'P T1r& PBH.JPPINF..ll COURT OF 'FAX APPE.A.L8 4iWEZON CITY co. 1 l � 17 1921 . - - - - - ~~~~ � -~ ~
2 t o � is t 1 c 1 h1 a n , e th po t: or nil l' 00 1dn 1 1 port d. r 0g ) 1ght ( ) of 11 ' � {) 1 4 t '1 r . ;, e t $U 0 1t1 1- bat t 1 , . r n t C.O db tb or b . .nr � t :r l Yt ord r ot 0. 11 t , th. y r 1 nd ub eq t l d aubj '" ot f'orfeitur odin fo.r io a.- t1on of c io 2530( ) in r n1 t - -.5 h T f d C to v el ro 10 tto ot .... c 1 25'21 of ft. r u � in th Coll cto rnd r s!on , 1 2 196 a pri.l 1961+, 0r t r ar 0 1 q nd 1 p tin of 10, 0 � I 1! ct Cus- t l n p l 0 h fv" r, in scpor t , r1 d in- � �17 n 1 21. -f 183
l 1s , 1. fJ th ~ .r con i.st1n t 57 bP ' '0 .at � , bl1e ;. ctio in \J 0 cust n.e~ 1 . he � c 1 d1 y f t r a n i 0 1o 5 .1, t r era f c qu u d r �� ct ton 253 t( ) o.f .. .t r i . d Cu t Co , in t . t o t - ction 100:; or th 5 m Co � t t t ovtton of w ieh s t!on L 4
� try t-O 11 r.pt t t fac t ' h rticl t1on w r c rri d on l)o th "S/8 1th it .J.na 11 0 !~elud~ ,. s !""' nif�s 1 11 t 1y .1 f ro ;;.- ISS
.... ... . 1 �� ~� ~ (') u ' of th r 1cl 0 1) I ' �tit "1 ., r th I � tal lt :t p l" .� I l" th fb th' 11 (2) th mant� tw rtt nrl o. r a t k b t th w n t llow y th l r to. �' ( j) t i ss t �j ti h t t � ~/v l) v lv d tn e e ' �U l" .od th r \'I no cles.r 1ntentio to lill h 0 in 0 ,. nt th r, O'V()f of it � 1 vful r ev<' v � upport or t 'p tio.~. h,j fly r 1:1 c un nt 1!'!/ d t� timon 1 vS~ no ~r e: r ing t in!.str t:lve �rcH:. dings befor . t au o:f C ust~ " � of th ... n !\f t of t r oi q on bo. �d t t: to th f�3 lt and th 't'i b . ailw lo� �tn t r r. e ... c (t~ � l te h 0 ..~I � ' r v. l o own by �� � 1 ch e r ry n c r o qt s ion. � Th doeum .nts , 186
6 ud nt i s 1 -n h �.... J (1} � � c r.:tf d f eop t 1t e1 d tl 0. tr wn r 1i L Q, r 1y h ' i (2) ' w1 ' h1 0 th �S l I 0 :L ti 1 {) r f rl hat th d( t c~ 0 t r. �:ft t1f1 1 0 0 h1 hd 11 t; or 1 c ,n" trh t nd_ ni w~ not f'il d ~ !3ur 0 -C � er h 1t i �� <i, was nt ;! rr ne1 ' 1963 ( � 1 -1 7 � tl r :.~ 0 ~ l r on r l).'O t, ir t t' f am t ifPS . t- .0 hI "j 1 bo t 1 on e �t 187
�I tiO' ... C CAS'a - .. ; � 1728 ~ 1921 7 26, 1 . � n t _.tn h e th 1 v~ ve ; b s 18 , tb , r ll �4c1y -ra t.r t 1 fll 0 t v to t t .s. th - onAr n t he � /.. � DRA.fl?P rri e at ila n .. -pt nb r :20� �96; wt tb. o of i ~t\t ( ) cr tee or eh q ~ pa .r c � t 1 .er� .h t A!d ea� r9 ,. ,.~, 1 t n., eo - , cr - n1! st t tt etten 1 CO~ t .rovi for in 1 1 . enttld 1 is tlv Or � 1 �it. c der t:�> t , r:tr c to 1 �- .1' :pl i:teat " eargo. () X: tl� t 0 41 . tu e. en 1o. or &Y XC p ion in ion 2521 od i\tt 1n 0 � f r ls ro r r ro 1J1"' ng n.1 e s, 0 1 tton 53"' b 188
to t c ton f�et �� co ot 1 10 ta � nf c ti n, � cb 0 0 s, co rar 0 he ptr1 as tb 1 r l tl ge of t for me.1 pr i ion � bus, e Co � t 1 i l. .3 ;.,. ~~2). � or u. ' � "� n 1 l89
� ~ 'ith re � d n . 10 , . 1 po y r c d t, ttti f1 ld $-8 to b. Vf' con ".... t ' oir u t n t ti� i 1t 1 in tlmt 1'l 0 it houl� 1 p:o . only 1 r1ou viol tons. ln 190
� 10 1 t nt t "t 11 0 cl t .1 w 0 t0 1 - i.o n ol 11 .c r � 5. c 1 1 0 5�1 0 d 11 0 0 0c �� v; 11 t c �� 1 � 192 0 1 s �r~ � i � ti lo � s � 1 1, J 1 "' , 1 � l
More in CTA Decisions
- ORICA NITRATES PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10946)
- PSC DIVERSIFIED FRUITS, INC., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10032)
- TRANSITIONS OPTICAL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8442)
- CTA Case No. 713 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 713)
- CTA Case No. 5401 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 5401)
- BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 826)
- PURATOS PHILIPPINES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 6980)
- BATANGAS ELECTRIC 1 COOPERATIVE I (BATELEC I) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8423)
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.