Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 203928 2015-07-22	CE CASECNAN WATER v. CIR LEONEN, J.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership,[38] Mindanao II filed its claim 138 days after the lapse of the thirty (30)-day period. This court held that while the BIR Ruling was in effect when Mindanao II filed its claim, the rule cannot be properly invoked because the ruling contemplates premature filing and not late filing. This court further emphasized that late filing—i.e., filing beyond the thirty (30)-day period—is absolutely prohibited, even during the time the BIR Ruling was in force.
	GR No. 173241 2015-03-25	SILICON PHILIPPINES v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the subsequent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership,[13] the Court summarized the rules on prescriptive periods for claiming credit/refund of input VAT, to wit: SUMMARY OF RULES ON PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS FOR