CPT V24P7-Art1 (Content).pmd - Taxmann

Direct Tax Laws
case of Kochkunju Nair (supra) and in the light
of definitions of “owner” and “ownership” as
found in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition)
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition) defines
“owner” as under:-
652
“The person in whom is vested the
ownership, dominion, or title of property;
proprietor; he who has dominion of a
thing, real or personal, corporeal or
incorporeal, which he has a right to enjoy
and do with as he pleases, even to spoil
or destroy it, as far as the law permits,
unless he be prevented by some agreement
or covenant, which restrains his right.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition) defines
“ownership” as under:-
The term “ownership” has been defined to
mean, inter alia, as “Collection of rights to use
and enjoy property, including right to transmit
to others…..The right of one or more persons
to possess or use a thing to the exclusion of
others. The right by which a thing belongs to
some one in particular to the exclusion of all
other persons. The exclusive right of possession,
enjoyment, and disposal; involving as an essential
attribute the right to control, handle, and dispose”
Moreover, the following principles with regard
to rights in the case of “ownership” emerge
from the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Swadesh Ranjan Sinha v. Haradeb Banerjee
[1991] 4 SCC 572.
(a) The term “ownership” which denotes the
relationship between a person and an object
forming the subject-matter of his ownership
consists of a complex of rights, all
of which are rights in rem, being good
against the entire world and not merely
against specific persons.
(b) There are various rights or incidents of
ownership such as right to possess, use
• DT - Secs. 45 & 54F
and enjoy the thing owned and a right
to destroy or alienate, though it need not
necessarily be present in every case.
(c) Such a right may be indeterminate in
duration and residuary in character.
(d) A person has a right to possess the thing,
which he owns, even when he is not in
possession, but retains only a reversionary
interest, i.e., a right to repossess the
thing on the termination of a certain period
or on the happening of certain event.
CONCLUSION
August 1 to 15, 2012 u TAXMANN’S CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS TODAY u Vol. 24 u 32
4. In the light of the above discussion and the
specific attribute of “ownership” found in the
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition) as the
right of one or more persons to possess or
use a thing to the exclusion of others, the
conclusion of the High Court to the effect “on
the admitted fact that the assessee herein, as
an individual, does not own any property in
the status of an individual as on the date of
transfer, we have no hesitation in accepting
the case of the assessee, thereby allowing the
appeal” runs counter to the definition and one
of the attributes of the term “ownership” (as
seen earlier) and, therefore, it is submitted,
with respect, that the decision of the Madras
High Court in the case of Dr. (Smt) P.K.Vasanthi
Rangarajan (supra), appears to be wrong and
requires re-consideration by a Full Bench.
Moreover, it can never be the intention of the
Legislature to exempt the assessees from the
rigours of proviso to section 54F of the Act
in respect of co-ownership of residential
properties under the pretext that they(the coowners)
are not the exclusive owners of such
residential properties.
•••