11 lascona vs cir

It is imperative that the taxpayers are informed of its action in order that the taxpayer should then at least be able to take recourse to the tax court at the opportune time.

LASCONA LAND vs CIR

More so, because the law and jurisprudence have always contemplated a scenario where the CIR will decide on the protested assessment. Lascona alleged that the Regional Director erred in ruling that the failure to appeal to the CTA within thirty 30 days from the lapse of the day period rendered the assessment final and executory.

It pointed out that the former spoke of an assessment becoming final, executory and demandable by reason of the inaction by the Commissioner, while the latter referred to decisions becoming final, executory and demandable should the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision fail to appeal before the CTA within the prescribed period.

It is imperative that the taxpayers are informed of its action in order that the taxpayer should then at least be able to take recourse to the tax court at the opportune time.

On December 15,the CTA dismissed the petition as it was filed beyond the two-year prescriptive period for filing a judicial claim for tax refund or tax credit as it found that respondent filed its final adjusted return on April 14, Petitioner Lascona, invoking Section 3, 11 Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, maintains that in case of inaction by the CIR on the protested assessment, it has the option to either: Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty 30 days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations.

In the first place, we believe the respondent court erred in holding that the assessment in question is the respondent Collector'sdecision or ruling appealable to it, and that consequently, the period of thirty days prescribed by section 11 of Republic Act No.

If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on hisfindings. Within sixty 60 days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final.

Under the Civil Code, a year is equivalent to days whether it be a regular year or a leap year. As correctly pointed out by the tax court: Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty 30 days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations.

As early as the case of CIR v. CIR, [12] the Court has held that in case the Commissioner failed to act on the disputed assessment within the day period from date of submission of documents, a taxpayer can either: CIR, 12 the Court has held that in case the Commissioner failed to act on the disputed assessment within the day period from date of submission of documents, a taxpayer can either: A taxpayer cannot be prejudiced if he chooses to wait for the final decision of the CIR on the protested assessment.

The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows: Within sixty 60 days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final.

Precisely, when a taxpayer protested an assessment, he naturally expects the CIR to decide either positively or negatively. Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty 30 days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations.

Tax - CIR vs. San Roque Power

Therefore, as in Sectionwhen the law provided for the remedy to appeal the inaction of the CIR, it did not intend to limit it to a single remedy of filing of an appeal after the lapse of the day prescribed period. Petitioner Lascona, invoking Section 3, [11] Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, maintains that in case of inaction by the CIR on the protested assessment, it has the option to either: (1) appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the lapse of the day period; or (2) await the final decision of the Commissioner on the.

LASCONA LAND vs CIR

Lascona Land vs CIR. digest.

Lascona Land vs CIR

CIR vs. Pilipinas Shell. On October 11,San Roque Power Corporation (San Roque) entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the National Power Corporation (NPC) by building the San Roque Multi-Purpose Project in San Manuel, Pangasinan.

The San Roque Multi-Purpose Project allegedly incurred. Nov 26,  · 11 Thames Cir #, Chesapeake, VA is a 3 bed, 3 bath, sq ft home in foreclosure. Sign in to Trulia to receive all foreclosure information. Nov 01,  · CIR vs. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY, G.R. No.Case Digest On March 11,Primetown Property Group, Inc., through its vice chair, applied for the refund or credit of income tax respondent paid in due to the slowdown of the real estate industry where respondent suffered losses.

Assessment – Option to appeal to CTA after lapse of days or wait for the decision of the CIR LASCONALand Co. Inc. vs. CIR G.R. no.Ma. 11 LASCONA VS CIR Research Paper  Lascona Land Co., Inc.

v. CIR FACTS: On March 27,the CIR issued Assessment Notice No. against Lascona Land (Lascona) informing the latter of its alleged deficiency income tax for the year in the amount of P,

11 lascona vs cir
Rated 0/5 based on 2 review
LASCONA LAND vs CIR | Uber Digests