Joint Ownership & Tax Affects !!

t’s a very common practice that when a person purchases immovable property the name of his / her spouse is added as co-owner, though the consideration is paid by either of the spouse solely through her/his own resources. In such cases the property becomes joint property and ownership thereof becomes joint ownership with both the owners enjoying equal and similar rights. The sole purpose of adding the name of spouse as co-owner is smooth transition of the property to the surviving spouse after death of the other partner.

However joint ownership does not mean or stand for property in the joint names of spouse only. It may be in the joint names of family members, friends, business partners or rank outsiders, but in most of such cases the consideration is paid by all the joint owners and generally the ownership is in the ratio of respective contribution towards the consideration money.

Taxation in joint ownership

Sometimes this simple and innocuous practice, especially where the property is jointly owned by spouse, causes litigation between taxation authorities and the assessee in respect of capital gains. Section 54 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and it’s various sub sections (54EC; 54F) provide for exemption from payment of long term capital gains tax if the property sold has been held for more than 3 years and the sale proceeds are utilized for acquisition / construction of new residential unit within 2/3 years of sale of the old property. Section 54F of the act states that the new house should be purchased in the name of the assessee. This stipulation is the bone of contention and tax authorities allow exemption of only 50% of the capital gains tax where the property is purchased in the joint names of the assessee and his/her spouse.

Legal interpretation-CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora has ruled that though the property was purchased in the joint names of the assessee and his wife but the entire consideration including stamp duty and registration fee was paid by the assessee from the sale proceeds of the property owned by him. Inclusion of wife’s name as co-owner is intended to avoid litigation after death of the assessee.

The court further observed that when we are advocating for empowerment of women, acceptance of tax authority’s plea to disallow 50% exemption because the property is purchased in the joint names of the assessee and his wife, would be derogatory step. The Hon’ble court dismissed the appeal of the tax authority.