<?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>Residence in India under FEMA: business visa holders staying over 182 days were treated as residents, defeating confiscation.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100795</link>
    <description>Under FEMA, the meaning of &quot;person resident in India&quot; turned on residence for more than 182 days in the preceding financial year read with the purpose of stay. Because the respondents were in India on business visas and were carrying on business, they did not fall within the exclusionary limb of the definition, so they were treated as residents in India. As a result, the regulations governing persons resident outside India did not apply to their purchase of immovable property, and the Tribunal&#039;s setting aside of confiscation and penalty was upheld; no perversity in its findings was shown. The connected writ petition was disposed of as infructuous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:32:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:32:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Residence in India under FEMA: business visa holders staying over 182 days were treated as residents, defeating confiscation.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100795</link>
      <description>Under FEMA, the meaning of &quot;person resident in India&quot; turned on residence for more than 182 days in the preceding financial year read with the purpose of stay. Because the respondents were in India on business visas and were carrying on business, they did not fall within the exclusionary limb of the definition, so they were treated as residents in India. As a result, the regulations governing persons resident outside India did not apply to their purchase of immovable property, and the Tribunal&#039;s setting aside of confiscation and penalty was upheld; no perversity in its findings was shown. The connected writ petition was disposed of as infructuous.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:32:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>