Library
Court of Tax Appeals decisions
8,629 decisions · 1954–2026
161 decisions from the 1960s
Newest first
- Ret Onec of Thee Prilippines Veurt of Tax Appeals Qexnon City Bislig Bay Lumber Co., Inc., et al. CTA Case No. 1646
- ' Replj!'\T, et al. vs. CO~R1issioner of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 1152
- KE: Urtie of THF Philippin’ 8 Gourt of Tax Appeals Quezon Gity > Philippine Acetylene Company, et al. vs. & 1019 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 931
- :E Pbjupj'Ilfe Ppe L8 4tuj~N Ern Surigao Electric Co., I Nc vs. The Co ~, et al. CTA Case No. 1438
- ~ Pale É Rrfuric of THF Prilippin'Gs “Court of Tax Appeals Qi:Zon City Peanardel Hbamanos, Inc, at vs. CTA Cage No, 1389 THR Commissioner of Internal Revenub, XE7-- EE CTA Case No. 1389
- E. !Lt Tc 0, et al. vs. Vs. COJ.L}Iissioner of I Nternal Revenue CTA Case No. 995
Advertisements
- Y \\ Ishar, et al. vs. Commissioner of Interna Revenue CTA Case No. 1167
- CTA Case No. 1330 CTA Case No. 1330
- Re Vuartic of the Cailiopines Coukt of T. Feals Que“on Cily¥ Amnaete V. ~ Ramirez, in His ‘‘ Estat Late Don Hale Ta Man Ate € Serine 3 Petits vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 1488
- Donata San Miguel and Benito Chua Petitioners, et al. vs. = Case No. 1013 the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs of Manila CTA Case No. 1013
- T Shfeon Evangelista, et al. vs. The Cohnissi Oner of Custoi-18, et al. CTA Case No. 999
- o RSPUBLEG GF GHB PHLid ie iRas COURT OF TAX APPRALS M6LOK CILY 7 ANTONIO TUASUN, et al. vs. \" CASK NO, 1398 JOSE B. LINCAD Commi ssioner of-L hvcreres This case involves a Geliciency income tar Feverme, assessment for the year 1957 acsinst the petitioner in the sum of #315995e36. Petitioner inherited in 7948 from ite acther, Dota Angela 5. Tuason, twenty-eight snail lots, which were leased to savers tenants under contraete of lease, and one big lot of 47,000 square meters. Atty. J, Antonia Araneta, who vav petitioner's; attorney-la-frct, svbacgrentiy solic the small icts to the tenants arid ennsed the big lot to be aubéivided in order to fecilitsts the osle thereef, The profits rralised frem the sales of the lots were treeted as cupital geins and TAXed only to the extent of 50% in eccordence with the destcien of the Collector of Ifternal Sevenus on “ay 17, 1957. Upon investigation, however, the Bureau of 26, 1963, assessed of §31,095636, as defi- ‘est for the year 1957. Internal Revenve, on J against petitioner the ciency income TAX and inte ww ae on CTA Case No. 1398
- 4 Insular Lumber Company vs. Yr Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 1179
- MODESTO.1. Flores, et al. vs. Case No, et al. CTA Case No. 1349
- The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York vs. Commissioner Ofinternal Revenue, et al. CTA Case No. 1267
- I 6puijllc Op Tfje an.~Pj'In Urt' of Tax Appeals ' Lj...~. Felicidad VI Erneza vs. The Commissioner of Custons CTA Case No. 762
- Jose Concep8ion, et al. vs. C O~GSS Ioi\'Er of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 669
- Sepcrlic of the Philippivab Gqurt of Tan Appeals. Manila ‘ Ote the Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines vs. « C.I.A. Case No, 668 Collector of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 668
- ~ -\ Dr. Juan R. Fernando vs. Collector of Internal Revei\Lue CTA Case No. 654
- Sapublic of the Fhilippined Court of Tax Appeals Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 671
- Republic of. the Philippines Cx>Urt of Tax Appeals Man'Ila E. Rodriguez P Inc. T PETITI.ONER vs. The Oollecfor of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 849
- U LLC 01" Thl:..'Hlllp" in I Qour~ of Tax APFB.A.LB Lii..&.N.U..A. Lj Jose Zk'10ra vs. C0~1issioner of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 731
- 7 Z Visayan Electric Company, Inc. vs. = Gcalcas Case No, et al. CTA Case No. 1439
- Republic Ef the Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Menila Philippines International | Surety Co., Inc. vs. EO Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 734
- Republic of. the Philippines Court of T P:/.. Appeals Manila' Bienvenido Capulong, et al. vs. Case No. 868 Acting Oow~Issioner of Customs CTA Case No. 868