(CA Inter)May26/Sep26

20 After five years of stay in USA, Mr. Umesh came to India at his paternal place in New Delhi on October 25, 2019, for the purpose of conducting business with his two younger brothers Rajesh and Somesh and contributed a sum of ` 10,00,000 as his capital. Simultaneously, Mr. Umesh also started a proprietary business of selling artistic brassware, jewelry, etc. procured directly from the manufacturers based at Moradabad. Within a period of two months after his arrival from USA, Mr. Umesh established a branch of his proprietary business at Minnesota, USA. You are required choose the appropriate option with respect to residential status of Mr. Umesh and his branch for the financial year 2020 -21 after considering the applicable provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999: (a) For the financial year 2020-21, Mr. Umesh and his branch established at Minnesota, USA, are both persons resident outside India. (b) For the financial year 2020-21, Mr. Umesh is a resident in India but his branch established at Minnesota, USA, is a person resident outside India. (c) For the financial year 2020-21, Mr. Umesh and his branch established at Minnesota, USA, are both persons resident in India. (d) For the financial year 2020-21, Mr. Umesh is a person resident outside India but his branch established at Minnesota, USA, is a person resident in India

19 Mr. X, a person comes to India on 1st June 2019 for visiting his parents. However, his parents fall sick and he stays till 31st March 2020. Thereafter he continues to stay in India. He decided to live in India for next 6 months by the time his parents recovers. In the light of the given case, determine the correct residential status of Mr. X from the given statements. (a) Mr. X is PRII as he did reside in India in the FY 2019-2020. (b) Mr. X is PRII as he reside in India for more than 182 days in the FY 2019 -20. (c) Mr. X is PROI in the FY 2019-20, but will be treated as PRII from 1st April, 2020, as he resides in India for more than182 days in the previous FY. (d) His stay in India is neither for employment, nor for business, nor for circumstances which show that his stay in India for an uncertain period. In FY 2019-20, he is a PROI as he did not reside in India for more than 182 in FY 2018-19

18 Mr. X, a resident of India planned a tour of 15 days to visit Paris and to meet his niece living there. While returning to India, Mr. X was carrying with him INR 30,000. Her niece told him that limit is marked on bringing Indian currency notes at the time of return to India. Identify the correct limit :

17 Mr. Ram had resided in India during the Financial Year 2017-2018 for less than 183 days. He again came to India on 1st May, 2018 for higher studies and business and stayed upto 15th July, 2019. State the correct answer as to the residential status of Mr. Ram in the light of the given fact as per the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. (1) Mr. Ram can be considered as 'Person resident in India' during the financial year 2018-2019 (2) Mr. Ram cannot be considered as ‘Person resident in India' during the financial year 2018-2019 (3) Mr. Ram can be considered as ‘Person resident in India' during the financial year 2019-2020

14 Priti, on 1st September, 2021 went to UK for doing one year MBA course. Her MBA course completed on 31st August, 2022 and she returned India on the next day. What shall be her residential status for the FY 2022-23 and 2023-24:

13 In September 2016, Mr. P, went to USA, London and Germany on a month long business trip. For this trip he got foreign exchange of US $ 50,000 from an authorized dealer. In December 2016 he remitted US$ 50,000 to his son in Canada, who was studying there. In January 2017 he sent his mother and wife to America for his mother’s treatment and for the purpose he remitted US$ 75,000 to his younger brother, who was living there. In March 2017 his daughter got engaged and she opted for a destination marriage to be held in May 2017, in Switzerland. While on trip to Dubai in the March end, 2017, he spent US $ 35,000 for his daughter’s shopping in Dubai. Later, the event manager gave an estimate of US $ 250,000 for the wedding. As per the provisions of FEMA, for how much remittance does he need to take prior approval of the Reserve bank of India.

12 Mr. V, brother of Mr. R , is a resident of Singapore and he owns an immovable property in Chennai which he inherited from his father, who was a resident of India, Can Mr. V continue to hold the property? (a) No, he cannot hold transfer or invest In India, since he is resident outside India. (b) Yes, he can continue to hold in India, since he is person of India Origin and the property is located In India (c) Yes, he can continue to hold the property, since this was inherited from a person who was resident in India. (d) Yes, he can continue to hold the property, since his brother (Mr. R) uses the property whenever he travels to Chennai.

11 The dealers in precious metals/ precious stones, can be considered as persons carrying on designated businesses or professions, when- (a) they engage in any cash transactions with a customer of Rupees ten lakhs, carried out in a single operation (b) they engage in any cash transactions with a customer of Rupees ten lakhs, carried out in a single operation or in several operations that appear to be linked. (c) they engage in any cash transactions with a customer of equal to or above Rupees ten lakhs, carried out in a single operation or in several operations that appear to be linked (d) they engage in sale or purchase of precious metal/precious stones and having annual turnover of Rupees twenty lakhs or above

10 Dhruv, is a pilot in Bangkok airways. He flies for 15 days in a month and thereafter takes a break for 15 days. During the break, he is accommodated in ‘base’, which is normally the city where the Airline is headquartered. However, for security considerations, he was based at Delhi. During the financial year, he was accommodated at Delhi for 182 days. Determine the legal position as regards the residential status of Dhruv under the given situation: (a) Dhruv cannot be considered to be a Person Resident in India. (b) Dhruv can be considered to be a Person Resident in India due to her stay for 182 days in India (c) Dhruv cannot be considered to be a Person Resident in India due to her stay for less than 183 days in India. (d) Dhruv can be considered to be a Person Resident in India due to her stay in Delhi for security consideration