{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lapanday Holdings Corp
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
New
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lapanday Holdings Corp
C.T.A. EB Case No. 1888 (C.T.A. Case No. 8932)
November 18, 2020
Tags
Court of Tax Appeals
CTA Decisions
Taxation
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lapanday Holdings Corp
C.T.A. EB Case No. 1888 (C.T.A. Case No. 8932)
•November 18, 2020
EN BANC[C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1888. November 18, 2020.](C.T.A. Case No. 8932)COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. LAPANDAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, respondent.DECISIONUY, J p:Before the Court En Banc is a Petition for Review 1 filed on August 8, 2018 by petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue against respondent, Lapanday Holdings Corporation, praying for the reversal and setting aside of the Decision dated January 24, 2018 2 and the Resolution dated July 5, 2018, 3 both rendered by the Second Division of this Court (Court in Division) in CTA Case No. 8932, entitled "Lapanday Holdings Corporation, Petitioner, versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent," the dispositive portions of which, respectively read as follows: Decision dated January 24, 2018:"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment dated October 24, 2014 for deficiency Value Added Tax in the total amount of P9,028,751.01 inclusive of surcharges and interests for taxable year 2008 is CANCELLED.SO ORDERED."Resolution dated July 5, 2018:"WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, is DENIED for lack of merit.SO ORDERED."THE FACTSPetitioner is...
Login to see full content
Tags
Court of Tax Appeals
CTA Decisions
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>