{"id":6378,"date":"2025-03-07T09:24:12","date_gmt":"2025-03-07T07:24:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-808-3367-17-dated-28-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-07T09:24:12","modified_gmt":"2025-03-07T07:24:12","slug":"case-no-808-3367-17-dated-28-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-808-3367-17-dated-28-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 808\/3367\/17 dated 28\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging a Tax Notification-Decision on Additional Accrual of Corporate Income Tax and VAT for Transactions with Counterparty LLC &#8220;Progress Resource Group&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The Supreme Court deviated from the previous position that an enterprise with signs of fictitiousness is automatically deprived of the right to business transactions.<br \/>\n2. The existence of a conviction against the counterparty&#8217;s director is not an indisputable proof of the unreality of business transactions.<br \/>\n3. The court must comprehensively investigate primary documents, asset movement, and the reality of business activity.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of all circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125536838\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging a Tax Notification-Decision on Additional Accrual of Corporate Income Tax and VAT for Transactions with Counterparty LLC &#8220;Progress Resource Group&#8221;. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Supreme Court deviated from the previous position that an enterprise with signs of fictitiousness is automatically deprived of the right to business transactions. 2.&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-6378","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\/6378","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=6378"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6378\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6378"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6378"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}