<?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>2025 (11) TMI 518 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781050</link>
    <description>Procurement of land and execution of sale deeds under a profit-margin arrangement was held not to amount to taxable service as a &quot;Real Estate Agent&quot; or &quot;Real Estate Consultant&quot;, because those definitions require rendering of service, advice, consultancy or technical assistance in relation to real estate, whereas the arrangement was in substance a transfer of immovable property falling within the statutory exclusion for sale of property. The extended limitation period could not be invoked absent proof of wilful suppression, misstatement or deliberate concealment with intent to evade tax; recorded banking transactions and the absence of positive concealment were insufficient. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable and the Tribunal&#039;s order was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=863663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 518 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781050</link>
      <description>Procurement of land and execution of sale deeds under a profit-margin arrangement was held not to amount to taxable service as a &quot;Real Estate Agent&quot; or &quot;Real Estate Consultant&quot;, because those definitions require rendering of service, advice, consultancy or technical assistance in relation to real estate, whereas the arrangement was in substance a transfer of immovable property falling within the statutory exclusion for sale of property. The extended limitation period could not be invoked absent proof of wilful suppression, misstatement or deliberate concealment with intent to evade tax; recorded banking transactions and the absence of positive concealment were insufficient. The service tax demand was therefore unsustainable and the Tribunal&#039;s order was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>