CTA Case No. 1887 (Decision)
f I I I !' ( J:.Jr�.. r..__, I \ I !. I C.I. y �7 v i c I ' � I � 1' t ,, 19 0 '
10, 1' 1 � ' ' � �~ 191
.. . DE!J c or xpo o.t �d �
t 0 1 ' � h to re � ' J 1 J (c) - ' d 193
� ,1 ? 1 1 1a 5 Ul 1y tor. ( � 2�3,
7 e ( � ( \� 19 5
"' ' . 17 7 g a.t .P � ) b li �. nc t .. o1 .� e 'fi \ �� t�tl.li~ t si er t., r l l -cts ,, � itt of !' 19 6
.ru t 4 or 1 181 . ., e � v. c r e t s, �� � 951, i ly }' p . .. � ortun to i' . c1n s, oc � .tJ. ~io d p *' te, ell the eon .ont1ona of p .t1 ::to � � 1 VI or 1 . p of l o11 :zer in qtle tton, were spe.cif.tcally d 1 3 or .1s $ r r 1 de Ot r 0 l� pr ' t6 v +. a p ttcner p . .tlY' or J. ir~-ctly, 1 th diec t he tro t Y1 ve sel. 11 "h er u ap ct a ...... tr th s � b1 f r n . c () bo � �us of t c sto doeu. . nt i vtal io n 2530(e), ( -1), ( �3}, ( -4) ( -5) 0 0 iff t h by n je t w , 1 tr c l .r 1 c1 , t~tau e r el o� the shipme .s 1 ue t1on rto !! 197
I 1 87 C'll ' dt t . . 0; wlt 1 p ' �DD i b: c 1t1 te:r � ppO~tunits- to, lntrcdua .V1dGnO<A� to ::ro w.n tJ.lept1on , t b � 4m1 ti th. truth -� 0 ai Gli nd ( ~'""""'"~-U1 v_. Ca t \0 h11. osa, &t al., 76 Phil. 115'.) .. 1 :1 l ri~~'" t.~h t t of ..ncwl.Of.l: or 1nn�eanc on tb� t>Ut � of ~l ner 1 , te:ri in to:rte:l � r proo~~ ~~w~~ion J:' 11t 1 t 19 ,. ) I l � l" 0 itt a ptoce n~ �tli.r J.a o st: G 1m U � c tde . 0 � (U. , � . itlo existing Q t~O. J :21 � tl\sr � �Ol.*� ,. ~mP�t t'X'OJt J:l~ p!'JtJI1.. t ',, 19 8
7 tO 0 ti � Co t q" �:tlYt it c 'l!l it and Co , 12 () t1l tl rt �&a 'I l 1 vi b.eut f1 cons ptian tr,,. and l (l ed tner tr , it M � al<l � q,u. ~t1o have .r � f t ti 1 r .x-~llleJlnt �coop 0 at!v e a.s s o � bl:por~ a. od.$ tnt� r~t.1ri for �tli f"lt" t or o ofl.:t.c.ial or 1 as � h t tt.tJ 19l t '13'1 pt~ ' (f t1 1* ) ion eases :n.tion.Q a QVE3:t � 1 67. U)o n~ot�o o.f a his ti. �i r fj 19 9
. ,' l.l. ly t 1 � j 1 ' ( �iii th costs. ( ~~~/Uvt~ ,.�. 1 -200
More in CTA Decisions
- CTA Case No. 2203 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 2203)
- CTA Case No. 22848 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 22848)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC.(CTA Case No. EB 3102)
- PRHC PROPERTY MANAGERS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8071)
- PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (consol with 9959 & 10010)(CTA Case No. 9882)
- COMPOSITE MATERIALS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8365)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AYALA CORPORATION(CTA Case No. EB 2118)
- SUMISOLA CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 6132)
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.