<?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>1996 (8) TMI 572 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457879</link>
    <description>Residency under foreign exchange law depends on the person&#039;s intention, as assessed from conduct and surrounding circumstances rather than a bare assertion. On the facts, the appellant&#039;s continued treatment of himself as a non-resident, including applying for collaboration in that capacity, maintaining foreign residence links and foreign bank arrangements, showed no settled intention to reside in India permanently. Isolated circumstances such as import of a car and closure of one foreign account were insufficient to establish resident status, and the notification explanation was held inapplicable on those facts. The appellant was therefore not a person resident in India at the relevant time, and the alleged contraventions under sections 14 and 9(1)(a) could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 12:33:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 572 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457879</link>
      <description>Residency under foreign exchange law depends on the person&#039;s intention, as assessed from conduct and surrounding circumstances rather than a bare assertion. On the facts, the appellant&#039;s continued treatment of himself as a non-resident, including applying for collaboration in that capacity, maintaining foreign residence links and foreign bank arrangements, showed no settled intention to reside in India permanently. Isolated circumstances such as import of a car and closure of one foreign account were insufficient to establish resident status, and the notification explanation was held inapplicable on those facts. The appellant was therefore not a person resident in India at the relevant time, and the alleged contraventions under sections 14 and 9(1)(a) could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>