T.C.
\nTHE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
\n11. CD
\nBase. 2008\/21718
\nDecision. 2011\/21383 Date. 2.11.2011
\nCASE : The case was examined and considered as necessary:<\/p>\n
VERDICT: \u201c… In\u015f, which is used by the company of which the defendant is an official and which has a Tax Technical Report about being allegedly edited as a fake. Renown. Tic. Ltd. If it is determined that a lawsuit has been filed in relation to the \u201dCompany”, if it has been filed, delivery and inspection of certified samples of evidence related to this case will be provided to the file, dispatch and transport receipts showing the flow of goods and money to determine whether the invoices are actual purchase and sale provisions, with the content of the documents and the cost of goods delivery invoice has been paid by the defendant that caused by the presence of the current payment receipts and documents presented by examining the current payment also accepted the existence of the documents, although it is determined that entered vault or the seller’s price to the bank account of the defendant’s receiving sufficient production of taxpayer property, goods receipt or stock is also considering whether it is done after evaluating all the evidence collected and a comparative examination of the defendant’s sole discretion and determination of legal status while you should, provision is made in writing on the basis of the expert report prepared as a result of the examination conducted on the file,<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION: Contrary to the law, the appeals of the participating deputy were considered on the spot for this reason, and therefore the provision should be applied in accordance with Article 8\/1 of Law No. 5320 No. 1412 C.M.U.It was decided unanimously on 02.11.2011 that K would be OVERTURNED as requested in accordance with Article 321 and that the appeal fee would be refunded if requested.<\/p>\n