<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (4) TMI 445 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103654</link>
    <description>A temporary foreign stay does not, by itself, make an Indian citizen a person resident outside India; the statutory test under section 2(p) depends on the purpose of travel and surrounding circumstances showing an intention to remain abroad for an uncertain period, and a stay of about seven and a half months to care for an ailing mother did not meet that standard. The Delhi HC also held that a notification under section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could validly prescribe continuous stay abroad of at least one year as a condition for retaining foreign exchange held outside India, because it imposed an entitlement condition without altering the statutory definition of residence; the challenge to the notification therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:49:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 445 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103654</link>
      <description>A temporary foreign stay does not, by itself, make an Indian citizen a person resident outside India; the statutory test under section 2(p) depends on the purpose of travel and surrounding circumstances showing an intention to remain abroad for an uncertain period, and a stay of about seven and a half months to care for an ailing mother did not meet that standard. The Delhi HC also held that a notification under section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could validly prescribe continuous stay abroad of at least one year as a condition for retaining foreign exchange held outside India, because it imposed an entitlement condition without altering the statutory definition of residence; the challenge to the notification therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>