<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (2) TMI 417 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78157</link>
    <description>An entity acquiring land for its own statutory purpose was not shown, at the stay stage, to be rendering advice, consultancy or technical assistance in relation to real estate acquisition. On the recorded facts, the activity did not satisfy the definition of real estate consultant, and prima facie liability to service tax as a real estate agent or consultant was not established. The disputed service tax and penalty were therefore subject to waiver of pre-deposit, with recovery stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 417 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78157</link>
      <description>An entity acquiring land for its own statutory purpose was not shown, at the stay stage, to be rendering advice, consultancy or technical assistance in relation to real estate acquisition. On the recorded facts, the activity did not satisfy the definition of real estate consultant, and prima facie liability to service tax as a real estate agent or consultant was not established. The disputed service tax and penalty were therefore subject to waiver of pre-deposit, with recovery stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>