https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259232 The judgment confirmed the service tax of 61,20,000 against the appellant, along with penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant's argument that he cannot be considered a Real Estate Agent when selling his own land was rejected, as the consideration received was deemed for services provided as a Real Estate Agent. The Tribunal upheld the decision on limitation, allowing a longer period for the Revenue due to ongoing investigations, and directed the appellant to deposit 20,00,000 towards service tax within eight weeks. Despite appellant's contentions, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of factual evidence in confirming the tax demand and penalties. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2015 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259232 The judgment confirmed the service tax of 61,20,000 against the appellant, along with penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant's argument that he cannot be considered a Real Estate Agent when selling his own land was rejected, as the consideration received was deemed for services provided as a Real Estate Agent. The Tribunal upheld the decision on limitation, allowing a longer period for the Revenue due to ongoing investigations, and directed the appellant to deposit 20,00,000 towards service tax within eight weeks. Despite appellant's contentions, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of factual evidence in confirming the tax demand and penalties. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259232