CTA Case No. 2766 (Order)
H f~f't'~I.IC Of.� IHE PBI I.IPP !~ FS c;, 1l h r c f T.\X AP PE ALS QL!,,ZON Cll'Y SYSTE1�1S & BUSINSSS 'SQ,.)lP.MEl'JT C )766 � CCRPORATION , rn o .r'l. � ''v"'..� :"::>"11'' '�J' -V. � '-- Petitioner , .J.. - versus - C.T .A. C.n.SB IW . 2768 COl<'i!'-IT SS I or~R OF I NTIR ,0",.L R~ V"J NCE , C . T . A . c~sE NO . 2772 Respondent . C . T .. A. CASE NO . 2773 X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X Sl-'IITH , BELL & CO ., INC ., Petitioner , - versus - cmn:ISSIO:f'<'SR OF IIJT?RlTh.L Rr>v:'I'-.m , Respondent o X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X B~LL CARPETS , INC ., Petitioner , - versus - COHNISSI ONSR OF INT~::.l.&L RT'VSNUE , . Respondent . x ------------- -- x C . N. LOVSTED & CO . (PHILS .) INC ., Petitioner , - versus - COHNB SIONF.R OF INT"B::RlJt"L rt,. VT'NtJB , Respondent o X- - - - - - - - - - - - - X BSLL HOBART lvlAliDFACTURING , INC . 7 Petitioner , - versus - COY! :IS SI OI-r.R OF II~R NAL RSiT': l'JUE , Respondent . X -------- - ----- - X 0 RD ~ R For the reason stated in petitioner �' 11NOTION FOR .JITHDR �,vAL OF PETITION FOR RBVIS1'111 filed on JV.:.arch 16 7 1977 , a .:1d there being no obje c tion on
the part of the respondent , the said notion is herr by GRA;'L'ED � L~t the above - entitled ca:es bA considered closed and terminatedo SO 8RD :RtiiD . "'uezon City , ~pril 6 , 1977 . - C01~~ uT~:: '~ / ::- C1. ~"GIN s~oc iq.te Judge
同类文件 CTA Orders
- PHILWEB CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10563)
- CTA Case No. 2419 (Order)(CTA Case No. 2419)
- CHERRY MAE CELESTINE, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,(CTA Case No. 10220)
- MBM ILOILO ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (FORMERLY UDK-SP 012)(CTA Case No. 9439)
- AVALOQ PHILIPPINES OPERATING HEADQUARTERS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10617)
- CHERIE MARIE T. CHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10240)
- CASAS + ARCHITECTS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9806)
- CTA Case No. 2664 (Order)(CTA Case No. 2664)
想要这份文件的分析？
让 ASG 法律 AI 为你总结、与其他判例对比，或说明它如何适用于你的情形 — 它检索的正是同一个数据库。