G.R. No. 175142 - BONIFACIO WATER CORPORATION (FORMERLY BONIFACIO VIVENDI WATER CORPORATION), VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in the light of the foregoing, the Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED . The respondent is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of the petitioner in the reduced amount of P40,875,208.64, representing unutilized input VAT on capital goods for the period from the 4th quarter of 1999 to the 4th quarter of 2000, computed as follows: Amount Claimed P 65,642,814.65 Less: Disallowance per Courts Evaluation 24,767,606.01 Refundable Amount P 40,875,208.64 SO ORDERED . [4] The parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration against said Decision. However, in a Resolution [5] dated August 23, 2005, the CTA Second Division held as follows: In sum, the refundable amount to be granted to petitioner should be increased to P45,446,280.55, computed as follows: Refundable Amount per Decision P 40,875,208.64 Add: Additional Input VAT a.) Construction in Progress P 1,439,629.72 b.) Input VAT found not to have been recorded twice 3,131,442.19 4,571,071.91 Total Refundable Amount P 45,446,280.55 IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING , respondents Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit, while petitioners Motion for Partial Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED . Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED to REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the increased amount of P45,446,280.55 as computed above. SO ORDERED . [6] Petitioner thereafter filed its petition for review with the CTA En Banc arguing that it has presented substantial evidence that proves its input VAT on purchases of capital goods from the 4 th quarter of 1999 to the 4 th quarter of 2000, as well as the fact that petitioner and Bonifacio GDE Corporation are one and the same entity. In a Decision [7] dated June 26, 2006, the CTA En Banc affirmed in toto the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CTA Second Division. The fallo of the Decision states: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Second Division [are] hereby AFFIRMED in toto , and the Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.