Definite co-ownership shares in house property require separate tax assessment, not HUF treatment, under Dayabhaga principles.

Income from jointly owned house property is taxable in the hands of the individual owners where their shares are definite and ascertainable. Under Section 9(1) and Section 9(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, such co-owners are not assessed as an association of persons, and each owner's share is included in separate computation. Applying Dayabhaga law and the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, the widow and son were treated as holding equal, defined shares, so the property could not be regarded as HUF property. The income was therefore required to be assessed separately in the hands of the co-owners.

---

---

Issues: Whether income from house properties jointly owned by a widow and her son, whose shares were definite and ascertainable under Dayabhaga law and the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, could be assessed as income of a Hindu undivided family or had to be assessed in the hands of the co-owners separately.

Analysis: Under Section 9(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, tax on house property is payable by the owner, and Section 9(3) provides that where property is owned by two or more persons with definite and ascertainable shares, they are not to be assessed as an association of persons and the share of each owner is to be included in his total income. Under Dayabhaga law, the son does not acquire an interest by birth, and on the father's death the widow becomes entitled to the same share as a son under Section 3(1) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, with a limited interest under Section 3(3), later enlarged into full ownership by Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The widow and son therefore held the property in equal and defined shares, and the income could not be treated as income of a joint family.

Conclusion: The income from the house properties was not assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family and had to be assessed separately in the hands of the co-owners. The answer was in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

---