‘Income Tax Exemption Linked to Marriage, Not S*x’: Centre Opposes Same-S*x Couple’s Plea

The Union government told the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday that the Income Tax Act's definition of "relative" for tax exemption purposes is based on legally verifiable family relationships such as marriage or blood ties, and not on the s*x of individuals, as the court heard a petition filed by a same-s*x couple challenging the constitutional validity of the term "spouse" under the law.

Centre Defends 'Relative' Definition

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath argued, "The relatives are not classified on the basis of s*x... as wrongly misunderstood by the petitioners."

Under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, any money or property worth more than Rs 50,000 received without consideration is taxable as "income from other sources." However, gifts received from a "relative," a term that includes the "spouse of the individual," are exempt from this tax.

Kamath told the court that the definition was designed to ensure relationships could be easily verified by tax authorities. "It is based on a legally verifiable family relationship called marriage for which the parliament has separate law and direct family status like–a sibling, so that if there is a dispute of a particular transfer of property, it can be verified by the authority with least intrusion into the status of the relative," he said. Same-S*x Couples Cannot Claim Spouse Tax Benefits Without Legal Marriage, Income Tax Department Tells Bombay HC.

Referring to the petitioners, Anurag Kalia and Akhilesh Godi, both IIT alumni who describe themselves as being in a stable relationship, Kamath questioned how such a relationship could be officially verified. "What is meant by it (stable relationship), can an assessing officer inquire into it," he said, adding that Parliament had confined the exemption to marriage and blood relations "which can be easily verified with least intrusion into the status."

Court's Observation

Justice B M Shyam Prasad orally remarked, "Your submission is that Parliament in its wisdom has carved out the exception so that nobody abuses it and it is to ensure that specific relationships are elaborately defined on the basis of verifiable legal status either by marriage or by blood. Today, if we read down the provision, we will introduce uncertainty." S*x Between the Husband and Wife Must Be Consensual, Says Gujarat High Court; Denies Bail to Man Accused of Subjecting Wife to Unnatural S*x and Physical Cruelty.

Advocate Dhruv Janssen-Sanghavi, representing the couple, clarified that the petitioners were not challenging the constitutionality of the term "spouse" itself, but arguing that its use amounts to indirect discrimination. He submitted that the relationship between the two men is conjugal rather than genetic, and that the word "spouse" excludes them and denies equal protection of law, even though the couple is seeking neither recognition nor presumption of marriage.

Case Background: The Gold Bracelet Dispute

The petitioners, both software engineers in Bengaluru, told the court they have been in a relationship for more than seven years and have been cohabiting since 2019 in a jointly owned house.

The dispute originated over a 22 karat gold bracelet weighing 14.41 grams. Godi received the bracelet as a family heirloom from his father and gifted it to Kalia on their relationship anniversary. The couple declared its estimated value as Rs 1,15,500.

Had the two men been a married couple, or even an unmarried heterosexual couple presumed married due to long cohabitation, the bracelet would not have been taxable and would not even have needed to be disclosed as income. Instead, while filing returns for 2025-26, Kalia was reportedly advised to get the bracelet valued by a registered valuer, report it as income, and pay tax at 25 per cent, along with a 15 per cent surcharge and 4 per cent cess.

The petitioners have argued that this amounts to a violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, with consequent effects on Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, since they are being taxed "solely on the basis of s*x" for what they describe as "an expression of love and affection." They have sought a direction that the exemption under the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act be extended to them equally.

The Karnataka High Court will continue hearing the matter on August 4.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jul 23, 2026 10:12 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).