This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CA0734
Case C-734/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — ITH Comercial Timişoara SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Abandonment of the activity initially planned — Adjustment of the deduction of input VAT — Real estate activity)
Case C-734/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — ITH Comercial Timişoara SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Abandonment of the activity initially planned — Adjustment of the deduction of input VAT — Real estate activity)
Case C-734/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — ITH Comercial Timişoara SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Abandonment of the activity initially planned — Adjustment of the deduction of input VAT — Real estate activity)
OJ C 19, 18.1.2021, p. 10–10
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.1.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 19/10 |
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — ITH Comercial Timişoara SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice
(Case C-734/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Abandonment of the activity initially planned - Adjustment of the deduction of input VAT - Real estate activity)
(2021/C 19/12)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Tribunalul Bucureşti
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: ITH Comercial Timişoara SRL
Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Articles 167, 168, 184 and 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) on goods, in the present case on immoveable property, and on services purchased in order to carry out taxed transactions is retained where the investment projects initially planned were abandoned due to circumstances beyond the control of the taxable person and that it is not necessary for that VAT to be adjusted if the taxable person still intends to use those goods for the purposes of a taxed activity. |
|
2. |
Directive 2006/112, in particular Article 28 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of an agency agreement without representation, the mechanism imposing the rules governing commissioning is not applicable where a taxable person constructs a building in accordance with the specifications and requirements of another person expected to lease that building. |