CTA Case No. 1634 (Amended Decision)
\.t<;f' UJ'J LIC OF THE PHILIPPINF..h COURT W' '.fAX A-PPEAL& 'U&ZON CITY �1 - -- � �� t 0 � ' / 3 29
C,lSlv ... o. 163 + 57 , fl :.~ d 0, 1"' Q t n� e .1c was ai 0. 0 p ic ' t ~ �- d l' ::.f ' p n rt !' t s(lr �ic ~ ,: 3 3 0
Joy . .n J L 1 nt1 f e1 lt 0 � w s t e el i 1l al s ' u. Q tio or $ i s 1 � '~.J" t .(' p r.tod Yt 195 r, 9~4, ~ L ..d in h lt ot J " , 2 co on c .rri~r' th.- �on li n " por- a oo tt e t1o s old by PAd:, o . "o. l i n ~ po t1o r er t o r to th lc . ri d on oe {E � 1, p � 1-3, rcrc. � '1 . 1�7-19, t �. � � }� f'i'l ~ . .e 1 for r r nd o ot 1 � mount or t 197�.83, r nr e 1 r� 1d on . tee b .t ef' c U�rY 2'.. , 331'
�lJ).~ ... 16 , 7 171 1 . 6 5, o fo ( ) ~ ard b to:t' co l! � ae on !t clru r fU nd, p tr f'1l th pre nt �1t1o t � ~ r 1 , 877 .<)<: ' i t. .tw "n .y ' 19 3 d s' , 1~ � 14, 1967 ' titi.one 11~ 1ts t1.t1on ot1o . to t .� revi w bJ 1 cr ti1ng i.t e1&� f'Qr t:' .f'Ut'l ��o ..._2, 1 , c . }� l. r . solu 1o :;..ti o r's 1' 1c t gr "' t .includEd .in r � r I nt r n 1 �G'f.f 11 .an 0 3l n Ol" .to� () r�a:r� 00 ( � .l;. .... ' c. ;.. t i' � n�rtitor , 1 1 e:~ only or ti 1 n r 1s 1 t, .2 or t~ f ct. th i� - Thr '! n t e bt:~ .sj n a.. r1 � tion or n t1o!1er is. Phi t 1' t !�' 3:32
c 1 - t 1 t 1 1 1. r ( � 0 t ... (� - .. - ' � � �( .. -1 t ). !� 3 3 3
A. ;}'I)!J: D �,CIS n1 ne , r ... c I c . NO . 1 t 6 - t. - ' t -1 ) . 334
I l . 7 X { (1 ��� 335
() II ,� .., . � G .ral ( 1) i' 336
1 t 1 :, 337
- c 1 -4 � 1~ 10 �h(' �r 0 ~r, ~ "'"n c r I l�' .. � 'O 1 :.1.. .' � .ri ( ' ~ 1'1 { . J i1 .... *" s , �1 i 11 0 �1! . ) L,r.. tr t� 1 � c ,f j r 1 ,...... t -1; � 11 -11 5 .0 ., � ':1'/5 in ir- ic � ~. ) n . ' c ~' .!' 3 3 8
\��AI".',: 1 t l 0! t- l � d:fe ur ,. t 0 1.: c r.l 0 0 1, h.0 pl �t :1. h hJ~ t!n � 'l: the es t c nt "h nn c 'W � r: h on 1 l in ot tar jl � ,j'T'u i .. ........ h n p() tim 0 h t () r ; 1d 1 .( s,al, tl �0 c t0 0 t ct 9 a ith ' 1.
0 ... � 1 0 .,1. i 1 0 1t - 1 � '
1 -1 7 . �() ' ' - -b, ll� e r.r1 a y 1')' ... �. ) . �- i ... 341
1 n no rr.i r. C"ont ct 9 rp 0 lc {l od 01.1 1 ' � �� � D� � - ., Ol" , t et, th 1 !n n (5' t� i s t 342
1 t I"�GUU>G~,._t n:J . rr l th b t ' ... '0 ep ' of 343
' � � ... e�
More in CTA Decisions
- CTA Case No. OC-637 (Decision)(CTA Case No. OC-637)
- TOLEDO POWER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8671)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RAEKEN MARKETING CO., INC.(CTA Case No. EB 1353)
- NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CABANATUAN CITY, and HEIDE D. PANGILINAN, in her official capacity as the CITY ASSESSOR OF CABANATUAN CITY,(CTA Case No. EB 1052)
- NIPPON EXPRESS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10416)
- ISLAND POWER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 26)
- CTA Case No. 4588 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 4588)
- NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY v. CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUM, CITY ASSESSOR AND CITY TREASURER OF TAGUM, PROVINCE OF DAVAO DEL NORTE(CTA Case No. EB 1930)
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.