Same-sex {couples} demand recognition as spouses within the IT Act to obtain tax advantages

The Bombay High Court has issued discover to the Attorney General of India on a petition searching for recognition of same-sex {couples} as “spouses” below the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition filed by two males, challenges the constitutional validity of the definition of the time period “partner” within the clarification to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, arguing that it discriminates towards same-sex {couples} in long-term, dedicated relationships.

The petitioners, represented by advocates Dhruv Janssen-Sanghavi together with Tejas Popat, Vishesh Malviya, Amandeep Mehta, and Aanchal Maheshwari, argued that they shouldn’t be denied advantages below the legislation solely as a result of their partnership is just not heterosexual. 

Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act offers with the taxation of cash or property obtained with out consideration. The fifth proviso carves out sure exemptions, together with items or property obtained from a “partner.” The petitioners contend that by limiting this exemption solely to heterosexual marriages, the availability not directly discriminates towards same-sex {couples}, violating their elementary rights below Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. 

Parity with heterosexual {couples}

While not getting into into the deserves at this stage, a Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla in an order handed on August 14, noticed, “Since the constitutional validity is challenged, we subject discover to the Attorney General of India returnable on 18th September 2025. We additionally direct the registry to subject discover to Respondent No. 2, returnable on 18th September 2025.” 

The petition additionally seeks, within the different, that the time period “partner” be learn to incorporate same-sex {couples}, putting them at par with heterosexual {couples} for the needs of the tax exemption. 

The Bench additional stated, “The Writ Petition is filed to declare and maintain that the time period ‘partner’ showing within the clarification to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) as unconstitutional inasmuch because it excludes the Petitioners from the scope and definition of the time period ‘partner.’ The declaration can be sought to increase the good thing about the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act to the Petitioners who’re in a long-term, secure identical intercourse relationship.”

In the choice to prayer clause (a), the Bench noticed that “aid is sought that the time period ‘partner’ as used within the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act be learn to incorporate identical intercourse {couples} just like the Petitioners, and who in accordance with the Petitioners, are in precisely the identical place as heterosexual {couples} which might be presumed to be in a wedding.”

The case is more likely to be heard on September 18, 2025, when the Attorney General and the Union of India are anticipated to reply to the problem.