Imagine a same-sex couple in Delhi. They've been together for twelve years. One earns ₹85 lakhs a year; the other earns ₹25 lakhs. The higher earner wants to gift ₹50 lakhs to help buy a house in the other's name. They think it's straightforward—a spouse gift, tax-free under the Income Tax Act. They call their CA. And here's where the conversation gets complicated.
In a recent exchange with the Bombay High Court, India's Income Tax Department made an uncomfortable position clear: same-sex couples cannot claim spousal gift exemptions under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act because the Act itself defines "spouse" only within the framework of legally recognized marriage—and same-sex marriage is not yet legally recognized in India. This isn't a gray area. It's a gap. And it matters more than you'd think.
What Section 56(2)(x) Actually Says—and Who It Leaves Out
Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act allows you to receive a gift without paying income tax on it—but only under certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the gift comes from your spouse, parent, sibling, or lineal descendant. A gift from a spouse is always tax-free, regardless of amount.
For everyone else—including a same-sex partner—gifts above ₹50,000 in a financial year are taxable income in the hands of the recipient. That ₹50 lakh gift we mentioned? After today's law, it would trigger a tax liability of roughly ₹18–20 lakhs on the recipient, depending on their tax bracket.
The problem is that "spouse" in the Income Tax Act is not defined independently. It inherits its meaning from the Marriage Acts—the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Hindus; the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for others. And none of these Acts currently recognize same-sex marriage. So legally, the IT Department argues, a same-sex partner cannot be a "spouse" under income tax law.
Why the Bombay High Court Exchange Matters (and What It Didn't Decide)
In mid-2024, the Bombay High Court heard a plea from a same-sex couple seeking clarification on whether they could claim spousal benefits under the tax code. The Court didn't rule on the constitutional merit—whether denying this exemption violates equality rights. Instead, it heard the IT Department's submission that the law as written simply doesn't apply to same-sex couples, and the matter remained pending.
This is crucial for advisors: the IT Department's position is now on record. It's not a judgment, so it's not binding. But it signals how audits and assessments will likely proceed. If a client receives a gift from a same-sex partner, the IT Department will expect the recipient to declare it as taxable income. And if your client tries to claim an exemption, they'll face push-back.
The Transition Trap: What Practitioners Should Tell Clients Right Now
Here's what you need to advise clients in this interim period:
- Document the relationship clearly. While it won't trigger the Section 56(2)(x) exemption today, having a written record of the relationship—a cohabitation agreement, a will naming your partner as beneficiary, or partnership documents—may be useful if the law changes and you need to prove the nature of the gift later.
- Consider the ₹50,000 threshold strategically. Gifts under ₹50,000 per financial year are exempt from tax regardless of who gives them (with limited exceptions). If the gift can be split or structured in that bracket, it avoids a tax return complication. This isn't a legal workaround—it's just the law as it stands.
- File returns honestly, but preserve your argument. If a same-sex couple files a return showing a large gift as taxable income, it's the right move today. But they should keep copies of all gift letters and documentation. If marriage equality legislation passes—and legal experts believe it will—they may have grounds to claim refunds or relief for prior years.
- Plan for loan documentation. If one partner wants to help the other purchase an asset (a flat, a business), consider structuring it as a loan with repayment terms, even if repayment isn't intended immediately. A documented loan doesn't trigger gift tax and gives flexibility. The loan can later be forgiven in the will or through a separate deed if circumstances change.
- Watch for assessment notices. If a client receives a gift and doesn't disclose it, they're at risk. The IT Department increasingly cross-references bank deposits with declared income. A sudden ₹50 lakh deposit will get flagged. Always disclose; let the IT Department rule on the exemption claim.
The Broader Legal and Policy Picture
This gap sits at the intersection of two slow-moving processes. First, marriage equality. In 2023, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the matter, leaving it to Parliament. No legislation has been introduced yet, though activist groups continue to push. Second, the Income Tax Act itself, which codifies family relationships in ways that predate contemporary understandings of partnership.
Several other countries—the UK, Australia, South Africa, Taiwan—have already amended their tax codes to treat same-sex spouses identically. India's move will likely follow a similar pattern: first, marriage equality legislation; then, corresponding changes to the tax code. But "likely" is not "certain," and your clients need advice for today's rules, not tomorrow's.
One more thing to watch: some state governments may move faster than the Centre. If Kerala or Tamil Nadu, for instance, introduce recognition of same-sex partnerships under state law, there could be a patchwork of rules. Stay alert.
What You Should Do With This Information
If you advise same-sex couples, don't assume they know about this gap. Many assume gifts between partners work the same way as gifts between spouses—they don't, not yet. Have a conversation early, ideally before a large gift is planned. Help them structure their finances and gifting in ways that minimize tax while staying compliant with current law. Document everything.
And if you're involved in legislative or regulatory advocacy—through bar associations, law commissions, or professional networks—this is a concrete gap worth flagging. Not as a legal emergency, but as a fairness issue that practitioners see firsthand. The law will change. Your clients deserve clarity in the meantime.
Found this useful? Share it.