{"id":5555,"date":"2025-02-20T09:40:21","date_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:40:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-820-2867-16-dated-13-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-20T09:40:21","modified_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:40:21","slug":"case-no-820-2867-16-dated-13-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-820-2867-16-dated-13-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 820\/2867\/16 dated 13\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions regarding additional tax liabilities for natural gas purchase transactions between KP &#8220;Kharkiv Heating Networks&#8221; and LLC &#8220;Ukrainian Oil and Gas Company&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; Primary documents confirm the reality of economic transactions<br \/>\n&#8211; The controlling authority did not prove intentional fictitious nature of transactions<br \/>\n&#8211; The enterprise acted in good faith when concluding contracts<br \/>\n&#8211; The court ruling on the criminal case is not an indisputable proof of transaction unreality<br \/>\n&#8211; The fact of gas usage in own economic activity has been confirmed<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: To leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances on cancellation of tax notifications-decisions.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviated from previous practice of automatic recognition of transactions as unreal in the presence of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125173227\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions regarding additional tax liabilities for natural gas purchase transactions between KP &#8220;Kharkiv Heating Networks&#8221; and LLC &#8220;Ukrainian Oil and Gas Company&#8221;. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; Primary documents confirm the reality of economic transactions &#8211; The controlling authority did not prove intentional&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5555"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5555\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}