This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-04-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Here, both the CTA Second Division and CTA En Banc found that Microsoft's receipts did not indicate the word "zero-rated" on its official receipts. The findings of fact of the CTA are not to be disturbed unless clearly shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence.[13] We see no reason to disturb the CTA's findings. Indisputably, Microsoft failed to comply with the invoicing requirements of the NIRC and its implementing revenue regulation to claim a tax credit or refund of VAT input tax for taxable year 2001. | |||||
|
2006-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Another well-settled principle in this jurisdiction is that this Court is bound by the findings of fact of the CTA. Only errors of law, and not rulings on the weight of evidence, are reviewable by this Court. Findings of fact of the CTA are not to be disturbed unless clearly shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence.[29] Quite the reverse, the claim of MPC for refund of input VAT on its purchase of capital goods and services in the present case is found to be supported by substantial evidence, not just by the CTA, but also by the Court of Appeals. The BIR Commissioner failed to convince this Court otherwise. | |||||
|
2005-04-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Fourth, ordinary rules of procedure frown upon the submission of final adjustment returns after trial has been conducted. However, both the CTA law and jurisprudence mandate that the proceedings before the tax court "shall not be governed strictly by technical rules of evidence."[13] As a rule, its findings of fact[14] (as well as that of the CA) are final, binding and conclusive[15] on the parties and upon this Court; however, as an exception, such findings may be reviewed or disturbed on appeal[16] when they are not supported by evidence.[17] | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| A petition for review on certiorari[17] is limited to questions of law.[18] In such petitions, factual issues are not reviewable by the Supreme Court.[19] Only errors of law are reviewable by the Supreme Court on petitions for review.[20] The exceptions to this rule include instances, sans preclusion: (1) when the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial courts; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[21] | |||||