Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1143 - CESTAT MUMBAIReal Estate Agent Service/Real Estate Consultant Service - case of appellant is that they did not act as “real estate agent” or ‘real estate consultant’ but in fact they have purchased the land and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and sold the same for a premium/profit - whether the first appellate authority was correct in setting aside the demands raised with interest and also the penalties imposed under the category of “real estate agent” service? - Held that: - Revenue has not come out with contrary evidence to show that the respondent’s services would get cover under the definition of ‘real estate agent’ services or ‘real estate consultant’ services. The first appellate authority was correct in coming to such a conclusion that the activities as undertaken by the respondent would not fall under the category of ‘real estate agent’ services or ‘real estate consultant’ services. A similar/identical issue was before this Bench in the case of Sarjan Realties Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 933 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where the bench has categorically considered the definition of the Real Estate Agent and the activities undertaken by appellant therein and held that the activities of purchase and sale of the land and the amount received by them, and the difference between purchase price and sale price cannot be held as commission and taxable under real estate agent services. Demand set aside - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
|