Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 125346 2014-11-11	LA SUERTE CIGAR v. CA LEONEN, J.
At all events, there is no constitutional prohibition against double taxation in the Philippines.[206] This court has explained in Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. v. Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte:[207]
	GR No. 175108 2013-02-27	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR PERALTA, J.
In China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[11] we ruled that the amount of interest income withheld, in payment of the 20% final withholding tax, forms part of the bank's gross receipts in computing the GRT on banks. The discussion in this case is instructive on this score: The gross receipts tax on banks was first imposed on 1 October 1946 by Republic Act No. 39 ("RA No. 39") which amended Section 249 of the Tax Code of 1939. Interest income on banks, without any deduction, formed part of their taxable gross receipts. From October 1946 to June 1977, there was no withholding tax on interest income from bank deposits.
	GR NO. 158175 2007-10-18	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CIR QUISUMBING, J.
On the other hand, respondent contends that Manila Jockey Club, Inc. is not applicable, but what should be applicable is China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[15] where we ruled that the 20% FWT on interest income should form part of the bank's taxable gross receipts.
	GR NO. 139786 2006-09-27	CIR v. CITYTRUST INVESTMENT PHILS. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The issue of whether the 20% FWT on a bank's interest income forms part of the taxable gross receipts for the purpose of computing the 5% GRT is no longer novel. This has been previously resolved by this Court in a catena of cases, such as China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[15] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation,[16] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of Commerce,[17] and the latest, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands.[18]
	GR NO. 149636 2005-06-08	CIR v. BANK OF COMMERCE CALLEJO, SR., J.
The issues in this case had been raised and resolved by this Court in China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[20] and CIR v. Solidbank Corporation.[21]
	GR No. 127882 2004-12-01	LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION v. VICTOR O. RAMOS PANGANIBAN, J.
We are convinced. We now agree that the Court must recognize the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest involved, as well as the necessity for a ruling to put an end to the uncertainties plaguing the mining industry and the affected communities as a result of doubts cast upon the constitutionality and validity of the Mining Act, the subject FTAA and future FTAAs, and the need to avert a multiplicity of suits. Paraphrasing Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,[21] it is evident that strong reasons of public policy demand that the constitutionality issue be resolved now.[22]
	GR No. 148191 2003-11-25	CIR v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
We agree with petitioner. In fact, the same issue has been raised recently in China Banking Corporation v. CA,[11] where this Court held that the amount of interest income withheld in payment of the 20% FWT forms part of gross receipts in computing for the GRT on banks.