https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404930 A refundable security deposit under a joint development agreement was not treated as consideration for transfer of immovable property because the agreement made the landowners' share in the constructed area the contractual consideration, while the deposit was a separate amount to secure performance and was adjustable against that share. The arrangement also stated that entry and development rights were not delivery of possession in part performance, and the factual findings showed that construction had not commenced or satisfied the conditions for a transfer under section 2(47)(v). As the deposit was not the consideration covered by section 194-IA, no tax deduction at source was required and the payer could not be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). en-us Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404930 A refundable security deposit under a joint development agreement was not treated as consideration for transfer of immovable property because the agreement made the landowners' share in the constructed area the contractual consideration, while the deposit was a separate amount to secure performance and was adjustable against that share. The arrangement also stated that entry and development rights were not delivery of possession in part performance, and the factual findings showed that construction had not commenced or satisfied the conditions for a transfer under section 2(47)(v). As the deposit was not the consideration covered by section 194-IA, no tax deduction at source was required and the payer could not be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404930