CTA Case No. 1738 (Decision)
-- -~ �'RPU UC or TBE PlftLJPPIN E~ COURT OF TAX J..p .4. U.EZON CITY � 17 - ------ ~ ~ . - II I r 1 o os � r 0 ot - 1 0 1 ' ' nt 0 0 c e 1 11 .' r r vs 1 'h r n r /or � r 1 c ' ti 0 r t vJ 203
� / �7 d ee n1 ; 1 66. �t 0. 0 � 7, o- . ). t .1 1 ' n � 55- 0 5 t- 1 nt 0 1 I0 ' , io. 17 t 11 : .
, <� 205
o. 1 t c r t � e., ( 1 1 � ' 206
.c t.'!I N ... c . e t o. 73 ; r,. . t. t !ln th thl Court f)tl 1966 cn11, �a c.le r tl1 t t~ d ti lon a� b .- cl by t1 o 11 r .. u 1 ,.c o . 112 oe rdi � th .i h r �se:tctton o �f'! eognizane - ot p , !' t!.on r 1 e fr ot tJ d :t :to r~Js () - a,.nyin t on r� clo nd 1n in w d i 1o r : )�Ch b ldt � � ? I 207
. � 1? y ci c -. ro t 1' ' i 208
.. 17 1 7 17 �1 1 1� l" � " (2) � 1 � 1 t .. t' .) � ? 5 il . . 1 1 5� 1 ) 1 l� 20 ~
... �7 ,. - �o 1 1.0 t t � 210
� � Ci , , )I 211
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.