Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CALAMBA STEEL CENTER v. CIR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171956 2008-01-18	STATE LAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. CIR SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Section 69 clearly provides that a taxable corporation is entitled to a tax refund when the sum of the quarterly income taxes it paid during a taxable year exceeds its total income tax due also for that year. Consequently, the refundable amount that is shown on its final adjustment return may be credited, at its option, against its quarterly income tax liabilities for the next taxable year. Excess income taxes paid in a year that could not be applied to taxes due the following year may be refunded the next year. Thus, if the excess income taxes paid in a given taxable year have not been entirely used by a taxable corporation against its quarterly income tax liabilities for the next taxable year, the unused amount of the excess may still be refunded, provided that the claim for such a refund is made within two years after payment of the tax.[6]
	GR NO. 154126 2006-09-15	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION AS TRUSTEE FOR TRUST FUND OF COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN PHILIPPINES v. QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT CARPIO MORALES, J.
It bears stressing, however, that entitlement to a tax refund does not necessarily call for the automatic payment of the sum claimed.[12] The amount of the claim being a factual matter, it must still be proven in the normal course and in accordance with the administrative procedure for obtaining a refund of real property taxes, as provided under the Local Government Code.
	GR NOS. 156637/162004 2005-12-14	PHILAM ASSET MANAGEMENT v. CIR PANGANIBAN, J.
Second, Section 5[34] of RR 12-94, amending Section 10(a) of RR 6-85, merely provides that claims for the refund of income taxes deducted and withheld from income payments shall be given due course only (1) when it is shown on the ITR that the income payment received is being declared part of the taxpayer's gross income; and (2) when the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement, duly issued by the payor to the payee, showing the amount paid and the income tax withheld from that amount.[35]
	GR NO. 141973 2005-06-28	PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We reiterate the fundamental principle that technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily designed to aid in the administration of justice.[56] And in cases before tax courts, Rules of Court applies only by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient shall be liberally construed in order to promote its objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[57] The quest for orderly presentation of issues is not an absolute.[58] It should not bar the courts from considering undisputed facts to arrive at a just determination of a controversy.[59] This is because, after all, the paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth.[60] Section 8 of R.A. No. 1125 creating the CTA also expressly provides that it shall not be governed strictly by technical rules of evidence.[61]