Skip to main content

Acquisition/Transfer of Immovable property – Payment of taxes

RBI/2014-15/307
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 38
November 20, 2014
To
All Category – I Authorised Dealer Banks
Madam/ Sir,
Acquisition/Transfer of Immovable property – Payment of taxes
Attention of Authorised Dealers in Foreign Exchange is invited to Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of immovable property in India) Regulations, 2000 notified vide Notification No. FEMA 21 /2000-RB dated 3rd May 2000 as amended from time to time.
2. It has been observed that doubts persist in the members of public regarding requirement of payment of taxes while undertaking property transactions under these regulations.
3. In this connection, it is clarified that transactions involving acquisition of immovable property under these regulations shall be subject to the applicable tax laws in India.
4. Reserve Bank has since amended the Principal Regulations through the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of immovable property in India) (Amendment) Regulations, 2014 notified vide Notification No. FEMA.321/2014-RB dated September 26, 2014 c.f. G.S.R. No.733(E) dated October 17, 2014.
5. Authorised Dealers may bring the content of this circular to the notice of their constituents concerned.
6. The directions contained in this circular have been issued under Section 10(4) and 11(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 (42 of 1999) and are without prejudice to permissions/approvals, if any, required under any other law.
Yours faithfully

(C D Srinivasan)
Chief General Manager

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more