https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84929 Respondent declared miscellaneous income of Rs. 6 crores to IT Department. Department proposed service tax demand and penalty u/s 78(1) based on director's statement that income was from construction services. CESTAT held demand unsustainable as statement alone inadmissible without corroborative evidence. Department failed to produce evidence that income was from taxable services. Demand based on assumptions and presumptions. Original authority rightly dropped demand for lack of evidence. Department's appeal dismissed by CESTAT. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:45:41 +0530 Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:45:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84929 Respondent declared miscellaneous income of Rs. 6 crores to IT Department. Department proposed service tax demand and penalty u/s 78(1) based on director's statement that income was from construction services. CESTAT held demand unsustainable as statement alone inadmissible without corroborative evidence. Department failed to produce evidence that income was from taxable services. Demand based on assumptions and presumptions. Original authority rightly dropped demand for lack of evidence. Department's appeal dismissed by CESTAT. Highlights Service Tax Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:45:41 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84929