CTA Decisions CTA Case No. 589589 1963-08-03
CTA Case No. 589 (Decision)
, . iW" V Lit. Of' 'l".tJ � t U L lP'!" l�'<~ll 4.0UR 0 T AX APPB.ALS M.AbllU - �� � -... ... ' - - .. - � c .'~� ' _, � , 0 - 286 ..
0�; ;0 -- t ro t 11 0 Co ( .o- 0 � � i n io ' � � ;' 20, 1 57) 1 vol u. rw 0 cb ,1 1 0 0 1- tL ( � , .4 ' c 0 ' ro 0 � OV 0 ( c s0 ), y, n - i t l or t .) . � 3 t 0 e io 0 tl 00 0 tt. n y �
� .' � n � � � 0 11 10 � X � 0 .. ,, 288
� 58 5 - u � � v � 1 � t � t ' 1 � i' 28 9
CT I �� 59 .. ' (See also Ramacho v. Hun. of Baliuag 28 Th.il. 466) rt ot r, � 1 1c e � ., , .J l t � � ' u 3, . 9 3 :� 2 9 0
More in CTA Decisions
- TETRA PAK PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10113)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION(CTA Case No. EB 228)
- CTA Case No. OC-588 (Decision)(CTA Case No. OC-588)
- RENOIR IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 11130)
- METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 7144)
- CTA Case No. 6626 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 6626)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALPHALAND MAKATI PLACE, INC.(CTA Case No. EB 2292)
- ISHIDA PHILIPPINES TUBE CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9729)
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.