Facts of the Case

The assessee company, M/s Jindal Roadways Pvt. Ltd., purchased a residential flat in the year 2007 for use as staff quarters. The property, however, was registered in the name of the company’s director, Shri Sanjay Jindal, although the entire consideration was paid by the company through its bank account.

Since the date of purchase, the property was shown in the books of the company as a fixed asset and was included in the block of assets on which depreciation was consistently claimed and allowed in earlier assessment proceedings.

During the relevant assessment year, the company sold the property for ₹47,00,000 and adjusted the sale proceeds against the block of assets as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The company accordingly claimed depreciation on the reduced written down value (WDV) of the block of assets.

However, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the transaction differently and taxed the capital gains both in the hands of the company and also in the hands of the director, merely because the property was registered in the director’s name. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether capital gains arising from sale of property can be taxed in the hands of the director merely because the property was registered in his name, despite the fact that the investment was made by the company.
  2. Whether the assessee company correctly applied the block of assets concept under the Income-tax Act while computing depreciation and capital gains.
  3. Whether addition of capital gains in both the company’s and director’s hands amounts to double taxation of the same transaction. 

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)

The Revenue contended that:

  • The property was registered in the name of Shri Sanjay Jindal, therefore any capital gains arising from its sale should be taxed in his hands.
  • The company’s claim that the property belonged to it should not be accepted merely because it was reflected in the company’s books.
  • The assessee company had reduced the sale consideration from the block of assets and claimed depreciation, which according to the AO required further examination. 

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

The assessee argued that:

  • The entire purchase consideration of the property was paid by the company from its own bank account.
  • Since the date of acquisition, the property was shown as an asset of the company and used for staff residence, establishing that the company was the beneficial owner of the property.
  • Depreciation on the property had been consistently claimed and allowed by the department in earlier scrutiny assessments.
  • Under the block of assets system, when an asset forming part of a block is sold and the block continues to exist, no separate capital gain is required to be computed.
  • Taxing the capital gains both in the hands of the company and the director would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible. 

Court Findings / Order

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that:

  • Merely because the property was registered in the name of the director, it cannot be taxed in his hands when the company was the real and beneficial owner.
  • The entire investment was made by the company and the property was used for business purposes, which clearly established ownership with the company.
  • The property had been included in the company’s block of assets and depreciation had been allowed in earlier years, supporting the company’s claim.
  • Under the block of assets concept, if the block continues to exist, capital gains are not required to be separately computed for sale of an individual asset within that block.
  • The AO was directed to verify whether the property formed part of the block of assets since 2007, and if so, no capital gain should be taxed separately.
  • The Tribunal also directed that capital gain should not be taxed again in the hands of the director merely because the property was registered in his name.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for limited verification. 

Important Clarification

The Tribunal clarified an important principle:

  • Beneficial ownership prevails over legal title for income-tax purposes where the real investment, accounting treatment, and business use clearly establish ownership.
  • When an asset is part of a block of assets, capital gains may not arise on sale of an individual asset if the block continues to exist, and depreciation can be claimed on the remaining WDV. 

Sections Involved

  • Section 32 – Depreciation on block of assets
  • Section 45 – Capital gains
  • Section 43(6) – Written Down Value (WDV) under block of assets concept
  • Section 143(3) – Assessment proceedings

Link to download the order -  https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1703237607-ita%20nos%20np.%208512%20to%208516,%20acit%20vs.%20Sanjay%20Jindal%20&%20CO%20no.%2017%20to%2022.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.