Visa Guidance

richie4india · May 12th, 2007, 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick-H

I don't know if you are confused... but I think that you are. It appears to me that you have not understood the different ways in which the word 'resident' can be used and applied in India.

Right at the beginning we have tried to explain to you that FEMA residence is not the same as 'residents' permit' is not the same as resident for tax purposes.

When asked for clarification you said you had no intention of moving to live in India. Now you are talking about qualifications for buying property and, in another thread, you are talking about jobs in India.

And everytime we point out that you haven't even got your questions straight, you come back and tell us that you are not confused but...

Before going any further on the FEMA, property and residence in that context thing, go and read those Goa property threads because I don't think any of us are going to repeat ourselves over again. Again.

Well you may think that. However, I have explained what I was meaning but I have had other answers...but now I have had the answer I wanted to know...which was whether WHEN RELEVANT the 182 rule again WHEN APPLICABLE needed to be consecutive or over the period of a year to qualify!

richie4india · May 12th, 2007, 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick-H

I don't know if you are confused... but I think that you are. It appears to me that you have not understood the different ways in which the word 'resident' can be used and applied in India.

Right at the beginning we have tried to explain to you that FEMA residence is not the same as 'residents' permit' is not the same as resident for tax purposes.

When asked for clarification you said you had no intention of moving to live in India. Now you are talking about qualifications for buying property and, in another thread, you are talking about jobs in India.

And everytime we point out that you haven't even got your questions straight, you come back and tell us that you are not confused but...

Before going any further on the FEMA, property and residence in that context thing, go and read those Goa property threads because I don't think any of us are going to repeat ourselves over again. Again.

I DO NOT want to buy property in India...I mentioned this as an example for a discussion.

I was asking IF.....when in India for 6 months I decide I want to live there and secure a job...obtaining an E Visa....eventually I WOULD want residency. To get this I WOULD need to meet certain requirments. I was quering that requirment....182 days consec' or in one year. The reason is because I have heard of people obtaining it by a back to back tourist Visa in the past! Which I was under the initial impression is not correct...but I was not sure!

No issue now

Nick-H · May 12th, 2007, 01:09

If you get a job in India you get an employment visa.

That's it.

Forget all this this 182 day stuff. please?

You can get 'residency' the day you arrive if you register: that is not the same 'residency' though.

richie4india · May 13th, 2007, 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick-H

If you get a job in India you get an employment visa.

That's it.

Forget all this this 182 day stuff. please?

You can get 'residency' the day you arrive if you register: that is not the same 'residency' though.

No...you are telling me I need an E Visa to work in India? Well I know hence why I mentioned it in the thread! The High Commision have confirmed the 182 days is relevant to residency.

Forget all this this 182 day stuff. please? Why, it was relevant to my question....

The 182 days needs to be completed in one financial year...which was ok on T Visas before. However, now they are becoming strict....this is what I wanted to know so I can't see why I had to forget the 182 days! Well nevermind..

dzibead · May 13th, 2007, 01:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by richie4india

The 182 days needs to be completed in one financial year...which was ok on T Visas before. However, now they are becoming strict....

Actually, it was not "ok" before either. Even if you had two tourist visas that were timed so that you could to be physically present in India for at least 182 days within one fiscal year, that still did not actually qualify you as a "resident" The fact that some people in this situation managed to get residency permits doesn't mean it was OK; it means they were dealing with FRRO's who were confused about the law. The law hasn't changed, but now it's actually being applied as intended, so in that sense you could say "they are becoming strict." The fact is, if you hold only a tourist visa, you cannot qualify as "resident in India" for purposes of buying real property in India, regardless of how many days you manage to spend in the country within a given fiscal year. That was the law before and it's still the law, but the authorities finally woke up and started applying the law correctly as a result of the big up-swing in foreigners "buying" residential property in new developments in Goa over the last few years. By the way, the 182 day business ultimately derives from international taxation treaties that govern where people will pay income taxes, regardless of where they are citizens. The 182 limit is used in U.S. taxation laws as well. But it has nothing to do with being "allowed" to stay in the country for more than 182 days because you are a "resident." This is putting the cart before the horse. You have to have the appropriate immigration status first. Then, with that immigration status in place, if you spend more than 182 days in the country, there are certain financial and fiscal consequences, some beneficial, like the ability to buy real property, some not - like having to pay taxes in the country where you are resident. But all those British ex-pats who natter on about "doing their 182 days" who think that then qualifies them stay long-term in India because it makes them "residents" have it bass-ackwards.

richie4india · May 13th, 2007, 02:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzibead

Actually, it was not "ok" before either. Even if you had two tourist visas that were timed so that you could to be physically present in India for at least 182 days within one fiscal year, that still did not actually qualify you as a "resident" The fact that some people in this situation managed to get residency permits doesn't mean it was OK; it means they were dealing with FRRO's who were confused about the law. The law hasn't changed, but now it's actually being applied as intended, so in that sense you could say "they are becoming strict." The fact is, if you hold only a tourist visa, you cannot qualify as "resident in India" for purposes of buying real property in India, regardless of how many days you manage to spend in the country within a given fiscal year. That was the law before and it's still the law, but the authorities finally woke up and started applying the law correctly as a result of the big up-swing in foreigners "buying" residential property in new developments in Goa over the last few years. By the way, the 182 day business ultimately derives from international taxation treaties that govern where people will pay income taxes, regardless of where they are citizens. The 182 limit is used in U.S. taxation laws as well. But it has nothing to do with being "allowed" to stay in the country for more than 182 days because you are a "resident." This is putting the cart before the horse. You have to have the appropriate immigration status first. Then, with that immigration status in place, if you spend more than 182 days in the country, there are certain financial and fiscal consequences, some beneficial, like the ability to buy real property, some not - like having to pay taxes in the country where you are resident. But all those British ex-pats who natter on about "doing their 182 days" who think that then qualifies them stay long-term in India because it makes them "residents" have it bass-ackwards.

Well yes you are right it wasn't before. I think what this lady was trying to say was...we allowed it. However, things are being tightened and scrutinsed by superiors!

machadinha · May 13th, 2007, 02:20

Mod note: it is common in web communication to quote just those (parts of) posts you're replying to. No need to quote entire posts time after time.

Thanks.

ba9rn · May 14th, 2007, 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by machadinha

No need...

Well said

May 12th, 2007, 01:09	#48
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 27,763	If you get a job in India you get an employment visa. That's it. Forget all this this 182 day stuff. please? You can get 'residency' the day you arrive if you register: that is not the same 'residency' though. __________________ . Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

May 13th, 2007, 02:20	#52
machadinha Not Your Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: yörp Posts: 11,124	Mod note: it is common in web communication to quote just those (parts of) posts you're replying to. No need to quote entire posts time after time. Thanks. __________________ Reading tips, all picked up at IndiaMike : INDAX's A Comprehensive Guide To India / Dinoj Surendran's Desi Humor / ITHVC on Culture Shock & Travel Health / JetLag Travel Guides For the Undiscerning Traveller / India Travel Links

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Need Some Guidance - Visa	DSepulveda	Indian Visa and Passport Questions	19	May 6th, 2007 01:37
Need Help & Guidance UK Student Visa Pls...	Jarodx	Indian Visa and Passport Questions	6	Sep 10th, 2006 15:53
Accomodation guidance please	prettypink	Lodging and Hotels in India	6	Jul 13th, 2006 16:23
accomodation guidance	prettypink	Lodging and Hotels in India	11	Mar 19th, 2006 06:44
Newby needing some guidance on where to go	beachmama	Introduce Yourself	6	Apr 30th, 2005 21:11

User Name		Remember Me?
Password