{"id":7394,"date":"2025-03-27T10:16:29","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:16:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-810-2309-17-dated-20-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-27T10:16:29","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:16:29","slug":"case-no-810-2309-17-dated-20-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-810-2309-17-dated-20-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 810\/2309\/17 dated 20\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the court decision analysis:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions of PJSC “ATASS-Boryspil” regarding the accrual of penalties and additional tax liabilities based on the results of a documentary audit.<\/p>\n

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
\n– Regarding fuel purchase: the court considers that to confirm transactions, not only fiscal receipts are required, but also other primary documents.
\n– Regarding amortization of the recreation base: the court pointed out the need for a more detailed examination of documents confirming the use of the object in economic activity.
\n– Regarding cash operations: the court essentially deviated from the previous position of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Decree No. 436\/95 on penalty sanctions.<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Partially canceled previous court decisions and referred the case for a new review to further investigate the circumstances of fuel purchase and depreciation accrual.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the court decision analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions of PJSC “ATASS-Boryspil” regarding the accrual of penalties and additional tax liabilities based on the results of a documentary audit. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: – Regarding fuel purchase: the court considers that to confirm transactions, not only…<\/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-7394","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\/7394","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=7394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7394\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}