Co-Ownership Doesn’t Always Mean Joint Tax Responsibility

CO-OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY DOESN’T ALWAYS MEAN JOINT RESPONSIBILITY FOR TAX PAYMENT

Summary: Co-ownership of property in India often arises from familial affection, but it does not necessarily imply joint tax liability. In Vinod Nihalchand Jain Ltd. v. ITO (2025), the Mumbai ITAT ruled that a co-owner’s name in a property does not automatically make them liable for capital gains tax if they are not the beneficial owner. The case involved Mr. Vinod, whose brother, Mr. Babu, purchased a property in 2004, funding the entire transaction. Despite Vinod’s name being on the ownership papers, he had no financial stake in the property. When the property was sold in 2014, the entire sale amount was credited to Babu’s account, and he declared it in his tax filings while claiming exemption under Section 54F. However, the Assessing Officer attributed 50% of the sale consideration to Vinod’s income under Section 45, arguing he had ownership rights. Both the AO and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this assessment. On further appeal, the ITAT overturned the decision, holding that Vinod was not the beneficial owner as his name was included purely out of love and affection. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the capital gains should not be added to Vinod’s income. This case underscores the importance of distinguishing between legal ownership and beneficial ownership for tax purposes. Lets understand this in detail:

1. Co-ownership of property is quite common in India, and a family member’s name is sometimes added out of love and affection.

2. In a recent case, Vinod Nihalchand Jain Ltd. v. ITO (2025) the Mumbai Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the consideration received from the sale of a property cannot be added to the income of the assessees if they are not the beneficial owner of the property and their name was included purely out of natural love and affection.

3. Case Summary: Mr. Vinod, an individual earning income from salary, capital gains on equity shares, and mutual funds, was added as a joint owner of a property purchased by his brother, Mr. Babu, on 23.06.2004. The property was purchased solely by Mr. Babu, who paid the full consideration for it. The property was later sold on 19.09.2014 for Rs. 54 Lakh, and the entire sale amount was credited to Mr. Babu’s bank account.

4. The Assessing Officer (A O) added 50% of the sale consideration to Vinod’s total income as Long-Term Capital Gains under Section 45, arguing that Vinod had not relinquished his rights to the property.

5. Vinod argued that although the property was jointly owned, the actual possession and full rights belonged to his brother, Mr. Babu, who paid the entire consideration when the property was purchased. He further pointed out that the sale proceeds were credited to Mr. Babu’s account, and his brother had declared this income in his tax return, also claiming an exemption under Section 54F for purchasing another property.

6. he A O disagreed with Vinod’s submissions, asserting that after the father’s death, the property belonged equally to both Vinod and his brother.

7. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the A O’s decision, dismissing Vinod’s arguments.

8. Tribunal’s Decision: Upon appeal to the Tribunal, it was determined that there was no basis for adding the Long-Term Capital Gains to Vinod’s income. The Tribunal concluded that Vinod’s brother was the sole practical owner of the property, and Vinod’s name was added out of natural love and affection. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that Vinod was not the beneficial owner of the property and deleted the addition under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.

9. Conclusion: This case highlights the importance of understanding the tax implications of jointly owned property in India, especially regarding who is the beneficial owner for tax purposes. Co-owners should be aware of their respective tax liabilities and the potential impact of property ownership on their income tax filings.

****

Disclaimer : The article is for educational purposes only. The author can be approached at caanitabhadra@gmail.com