Benefits NRI gets by buying property in India

 TNN Aug 6, 2011, 07.00pm IST

Tags:

• reserve bank of india|
• NRI

There are many families where the children are working abroad. However, the parents stay back in India. Having made a good amount of money, many of these non-resident Indians (NRIs) and persons of Indian origin (PIO) intend to come back to India later.

Also, they see India as a safe and good investment option. Investing in property here is always a preferable option. But how can they do it? Can they invest in property in India? Are there any restrictions? How can they fund the investment?

First and foremost, thanks to the liberal policies of the government, NRIs and PIOs can purchase property in India. However, one needs to comply with the requirements of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). So, if your children are NRIs, they can buy property in India. It could be a residential property or a commercial property.

To add to it, there is no restriction on the number of properties they can purchase in India. Neither you nor they require any Reserve Bank of India (RBI) permission. However, they cannot buy agricultural land, plantation land or a farm house in India.

Funding the purchase

A NRI or PIO can pay either through funds remitted to India from abroad through regular banking channels or out of the balance in their NRE, NRO or FCNR accounts. One can take a loan from a bank to purchase the property. Banks provide housing loans to NRIs to buy a house. The purpose of the loan, margin money and the quantum of loan will be on par with those rules applicable to housing loans to residents.

Repayment of the loan should be made out of inward remittances or out of funds held in the investor's NRE, FCNR or NRO account. It can also be done out of rental income from such property or by the borrower's close relatives in India.

They have to purchase the property by way of a registered conveyance deed. In case the NRI is not present in India at the time of registration, he can execute a power of attorney in favour of someone, who can then execute the documents on his behalf. This person with the power of attorney should preferably be a relative of the NRI, father, brother etc.

The normal processes of registration and stamp duty apply even in such cases. It is advisable to either purchase jointly with a family member resident in India, or to give a power of attorney to some family member who is resident in India to deal o n behalf of the NRI.

This will help in taking care of the formalities in India like registering the property, leasing the property, signing property agreements and also selling the property. Of course the power of attorney has to be executed properly on a stamp paper, and should be given to a trustworthy person.

OPTIONS

Such a property can be rented out. The NRI can earn rental income. This way he can get returns on his investment. The rental income can be repatriated abroad. A NRI can also transfer or sell the property. It is to be noted that the sale proceeds of property inherited from a resident Indian not exceeding USD one million can be remitted abroad in one calendar year.

The sale proceeds of property inherited from a NRI cannot be repatriated. It is to be noted the amount to be repatriated cannot exceed the amount paid for acquisition of the property in foreign exchange received through normal banking channels, or the amount paid out of funds held in a FCNR or NRE account. Also, in case of residential property, the repatriation of sale proceeds is restricted to two such properties.

TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS IN CHANDIGARH

HC wants ‘third eye’ to keep watch at night 

Chandigarh, August 26
Driving home the message of road safety, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that it wants the “third eye” to keep tabs on traffic violations even at night.
Taking up the traffic regulation case, Justice Rajive Bhalla of the High Court has suggested that the Chandigarh administration “may also consider installing cameras with night vision and a flash”.
Justice Bhalla also indicated that the court wanted to gauge the efficacy of the closed circuit television cameras and also wanted to know whether more such cameras should be installed in the city.
“The respondents are directed to file an affidavit with respect to the number of challans generated by CCTV cameras and whether the Chandigarh administration intends to cover other areas of the city with the CCTV cameras and to establish more such control rooms,” Justice Bhalla asserted.
The Bench was also told that the number of traffic challans in the city had gone down, “thereby establishing that the attempts by the Chandigarh Police to educate the general public about the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are succeeding”.
Turning to Haryana, Justice Bhalla asked the Panchkula Superintendent of Police to ensure that traffic rotaries and service lanes in the township were not accessed from the wrong side.
The State of Haryana was directed to file an affidavit on “offenders sentenced for driving under the influence of liquor during the past two months”.
In his detailed four-page order, Justice Bhalla also took note of the assertion that 85 per cent of the bypass from Pinjore to Parwanoo was complete and was likely to be thrown open to the general public by December.
The State of Haryana was also took time from the High Court to file an affidavit on the minimum number of traffic police officials required in Gurgaon and Faridabad.
Justice Bhalla had already directed the removal of all encroachments on land beneath the Zirakpur flyover. The case would now come up for hearing on September 26.

ਜੱਸੀ ਖੰਗੂੜਾ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਮਰਥਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਮਿਲੇ

ਟੋਰਾਂਟੋ, 26 ਅਗਸਤ (ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੈਣੀ)-ਕੈਨੇਡਾ ਫੇਰੀ 'ਤੇ ਆਏ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੇ ਹਲਕਾ ਕਿਲਾ ਰਾਏਪੁਰ ਦੇ ਵਿਧਾਇਕ ਸ. ਜੱਸੀ ਖਗੂੰੜਾ ਵਲੋਂ ਬੀਤੇ ਦਿਨੀਂ ਟੋਰਾਂਟੋ ਤੇ ਲਾਗਲੇ ਸ਼ਹਿਰਾਂ 'ਚ ਵਸੇ ਹਲਕਾ ਦਾਖਾ (ਜ਼ਿਲ੍ਹਾ ਲੁਧਿਆਣਾ) ਦੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਮਰਥਕਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਵਿਸ਼ੇਸ਼ ਮੁਲਾਕਾਤ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੀ ਮੌਜੂਦਾ ਰਾਜਨੀਤਕ ਸਥਿਤੀ ਤੋਂ ਜਾਣੂ ਕਰਵਾਉਂਦਿਆਂ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੀਆਂ ਅਗਾਮੀ ਵਿਧਾਨ ਸਭਾ ਚੋਣਾਂ 'ਚ ਕਾਂਗਰਸ ਵਲੋਂ ਬਹੁਮਤ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ। ਇਸ ਮੌਕੇ ਹਰਜੀਤ ਧਨੋਆ, ਰਵੀ ਧਨੋਆ (ਤਲਵੰਡੀ ਕਲਾਂ) ਤੇ ਤਰਨਜੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਗਹੂੰਣੀਆ ਆਦਿ ਹਾਜ਼ਰ ਸਨ।

PM announces merging of OCI, PIO cards

PM announces merging of OCI, PIO cards - Indian Express

NRIs entitled to speedy eviction of tenants: HC

Chandigarh, August 25
In a judgment affecting tenants residing in properties owned by nonresident Indians, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the provision of the law providing for speedy remedy to NRIs “in bona fide need of premises let out to tenants”. The ruling came on a petition filed by Asha Chawla and other petitioners against the Union of India and other respondents.
In their petition placed before the bench of acting chief justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and justice AK Mittal, the petitioners had earlier sought direction for declaring unconstitutional the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 and the notification dated October 9, 2009 issued by the central government extending the amended Act to the union territory of Chandigarh.
The petitioners had claimed they were tenants in residential and nonresidential buildings in Chandigarh. They stated they were “facing eviction proceedings at the instance of different nonresident Indian landlords under section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949”, amended by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001.
After hearing the rival contentions, the bench observed section 13B of the Act provided for special right in favour of landlords under the category of nonresident Indians.
“The classification of nonresident Indians, as a separate class of landlords, cannot be held to be violative of article 14 of the Indian constitution. The right to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide need is available to all landlords. The only difference in the case of NRIs and certain other specified landlords is that the right to contest eviction proceedings is governed by special procedure….” “The classification is not shown to be irrational. The same is intelligible and has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved, that is, providing speedy remedy to nonresidents in bona fide need of premises let out to tenants”, the bench stated.
“As regards the validity of the impugned notification extending the Punjab Act to the union territory of Chandigarh, the contention has to be rejected in view of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramesh Birch and others vs Union of India and others, upholding the notification extending the 1985 amendment of the state of Punjab to the union territory of Chandigarh…. We, thus, do not find any merit in the petition. Dismissed,” the bench concluded.