Capital gains exemption cannot be reduced for joint-name purchases when the assessee funded the entire investment.

Exemption for reinvestment of capital gains under sections 54 and 54EC cannot be curtailed merely because the new residential property and bonds are held in joint names. Where the assessee paid the entire consideration from her own sale proceeds, the presence of another name on the conveyance does not by itself negate the exemption or justify restricting it to 50%. The analysis treats the source of investment as determinative and notes that the statute does not prohibit joint title where the assessee's funds were used for the acquisition. Accordingly, the exemption is available on the full amount invested by the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under sections 54 and 54EC could be restricted to 50% merely because the new residential property and the specified bonds stood in joint names, when the entire consideration for the investments came from the assessee's own sale proceeds.

Analysis: The investment in the new residential property and the bonds was made out of the sale consideration received by the assessee. Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applied to note that where consideration is paid by one person, the presence of a joint name in the conveyance does not by itself decide the quality of ownership so as to defeat the exemption claim. The relevant provisions of section 54 and section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 require investment of capital gains in the prescribed asset and do not prohibit purchase in joint names, so long as the assessee's investment is the source of the acquisition. On that basis, the authorities below were not justified in restricting the exemption to 50% on a presumed co-ownership basis.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to exemption under sections 54 and 54EC on the full amount invested by her, and the restriction to 50% was incorrect.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption for reinvestment of capital gains cannot be denied or proportionately curtailed merely because the new asset is acquired in joint names, where the assessee has in fact invested the entire sale consideration and the statute does not bar joint title.

---