Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that the clauses of the joint development agreement showed that legal possession of the property continued to remain with the land owner. The agreement specifically mentioned that the assessee was only permitted by the land owners to enter upon the scheduled property to develop the scheduled property by constructing a residential apartment building according to the terms mentioned therein. The permission to enter by way of licence so granted was specifically stated not to be construed as delivery of possession of the scheduled property in part performance of any contract as defined under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with section 2(47)(v) and (vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After obtaining consent from the land owners, the assessee was to take appropriate steps to obtain no objection certificate and other permissions required for undertaking the project within 12 months from the date of the agreement. Nothing was brought on record to show that the assessee got approval of the sanctioned plan vis-à-vis any construction started during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In such a case, it could not be said that there was a transfer of immovable property during the relevant assessment year. Even if it was advance payment against the sale consideration, it was not linked to the transfer of immovable property as enumerated in section 194-IA, since the condition laid down in section 2(47)(v) was not satisfied within the meaning of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The assessee could not be held an assessee-in-default in terms of section 201(1) and (1A) of the Act.(AY.2014-15)