Dear Nikhil

 I undersatand that. So what you suggest in the below case study. 

 for Example-(1)-  A (Earning Person) and B (His mother, non working ) are on the loan structure but case is framed only on the income of A while property is in name of B (mother) only as females are getting Stamp Duty benefit at the time of registry of property. So how A will claim whole benefit under Sec  80C and Sec 24b even if he is solely making principle and interest repayment 

(2) And if A and B both are joint owner of property and both are earning  but repayment by A only as normally Financial Institutions take repayment from Salaried A/c only , so only one of both can make payment.  So how B can also Claim partly rebate as she is co-owner ? 

In case 1,

I see difficult establish any positive case for Mr A (repaying loan but not holding any beneficial interest in the property).  If I am not wrong, even the loan documentation won't be home loan persay. 

Case 2

In this case it is very much possible as joint ownder B can claim the A is paying his/her share also and the same is being reimbursed.  But as I have said before, such arrangements can be questioned.

Ya my opinion was also same for Case B.  But Practical Cases like what i mentioned in Case A are happening and Loan Documentation(Home Loan) is in name of A and B both but due to money saving (as i mentioned stamp duty less  in resale cases where registry is happening) benefical property is in name of B only . And than they raise queries and asking for Proofs with proper law justification whether A can claim Tax benefit without owning porperty but making repayment. 

Vipin and others,

Just for sake of an argument, we may explore a possible argument. 

What if we say that mother is only the legal owner of the property and the son is the actual/ beneficial owner of the property.   The beneficial ownership plays an important role in determing the liability of paying capital gains in several circumstances.

The facts looked into for establishing beneficial ownership are normally as under:

The formal owner is not a benefical owner he/she:

• Acts as a conduit for another person who actually receives the benefit of dividends; or
• Is a mere fiduciary or administrator acting on behalf of the interested persons

Now in this case it can be argued that the mother is only a conduit for the son.

Thus if the son is the beneficial owner of the capital asset, the income generated from it should also be attributed to the son.  The fact that son is paying back the housing loan and the interest can further strengthen the case.  Consequently, the benefits of deduction under 24B and 80C should be allowed to the son. 

But there is a flip side.  If the above argument is made, then an alternative accusation can be made that the beneficial owner used his mother to avoid stamp duty.  Accordingly, the consequence of avoidance of stamp duty should be attributed to the son.

Also, if the beneficial ownership argument is forwarded, then the son shall also be liable for paying taxes on the rent income (if, any) and possible future tax liability on LTCG (if any may arise on sale of the impugned property)

As I said before, I normally don't like such playing around with the facts.  Though there is no harm in taking an aggresive tax position provided the above mentioned negatives can be factored in.

I think exemption will available to husband only, since he has done the payment

Dear all

I think Deduction u/s 24 b & 80c  can be claim both 50% husband & wife. if  without jontly account can not be section loan bank.  it is must both claim. 

Thank you so much for your replies,

I got my answer,

In case husband is a salaried employee then exemption will be available only to husband-150000 & 100000(80C).......

In case he is a Business Person then he can show that he has paid her wife PROFESSIONAL FEES (like Fees for arranging sales, she is a salaried employee etc.)....so wife can also claim  deduction, on account of such fees being shown as her income........Thus exemption will be available to both husband & wife [150000 each & 100000 each u/s 80C]