Right from the definition of a ‘senior citizen’ for tax evaluation to the definition of a ‘Non-Resident Indian’, our tax and forex laws are full of inconsistencies and discrepancies. It is high time the government removed these lacunae
Our laws—mainly those dealing in economic matters like the Income-Tax (I-T) Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) are flawed, and riddled with inconsistencies. They leave the common citizen utterly confounded.
In fact, when I was having an informal chat with a top bureaucrat, he remarked in a lighter vein that if all our laws were crystal clear, a citizen would not find the need to approach the sarkari babus, who would then become redundant… and sent home! This, he quipped, was the reason behind legal provisions that are often confusing.
Let’s examine a few of the lacunae:
In the first place, the term “senior citizen” is nowhere defined in the Income-Tax Act, 1962. For “senior citizen“ assessees, the Finance Act 2011 has lowered the age for the threshold limit from 65 years to 60 years in Part III of the First Schedule dealing with tax slabs and rates.
The same Act has additionally created a new category of “Very Senior Citizens”—above 80 years. According to a report there are only 15,000 tax assessees in this 80+ age bracket, and one of them will be Manmohan Singhji!
On the other hand, corresponding or consequential changes on the same lines have not been brought in elsewhere in the Income-Tax Act in Section 80D for granting enhanced deduction for premium on health insurance to assessees completing 65 years. Similarly Section 80DDB (allowing deduction for expenses on treatment of prescribed diseases) is also applicable to those completing 65 years. Corresponding changes to lower the age to 60 years in these Sections ought to have been brought about at the same time. This is a glaring flaw, and necessary amendments need to be brought about immediately.
The other grey area is the term NRI (Non-Resident Indian), both in the I-T Act and FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act). This term, with its variants ‘PIO/OIC’, (Person of Indian Origin/Overseas Citizenship of India), is freely and very loosely bandied about—both by bureaucracy and citizens. Yet there is no common definition.
The Income Statute classifies assesses into ‘Citizen’, ‘Resident but not Ordinarily Resident’ and ‘Not Resident’ depending upon the number of days of their stay in India and outside India.
FEMA (and FERA—the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, now repealed) has an altogether different take on the criteria for defining an NRI—it lays down the purpose of the stay outside India, irrespective of the number of days spent outside India. Thus anyone, other than a person staying abroad to pursue business, profession or vocation but on a tour, for studies, prolonged medical treatment or to spend time with family staying there, is not considered an NRI under FEMA, even though he may be an NRI under the I-T Act.
The tax status of staying out has been imported by the Limited Liability Partnership Act. The authorities related to foreign exchange like the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) adopt the FEMA criteria. There are references to non-residents in the Companies Act, too. The FCRA (Foreign Currency Regulation Act) however, refers to “Foreign Citizens”.
The US IRS (Internal Revenue Service) has rightly targeted our diaspora who were trying to get the best of both worlds—residing abroad and not paying taxes on their funds parked in Indian banks in NRE (Non-Resident External)/FCNR (Foreign Currency Non-Resident) Accounts, which are tax exempt. The laws both in the US/UK as well as in India are very clear—declare the income earned anywhere in the world and claim legitimate exemptions/deductions like those provided by the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements entered into between the countries of their residence and India.
Since both the taxation and forex statutes fall within the ambit of the legislative jurisdiction of the finance ministry, both these definitions need to be appropriately synchronised. There is no legal justification for applying two differing standards to a same individual.
(The author is a Chartered Accountant and has been an auditor of a number of insurance companies)
Inside story of the National Stock Exchange’s amazing success, leading to hubris, regulatory capture and algo scam

Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.

Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.

Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )

Is it not suggestivem following the strain of the comments posted so far, that the FCRA office cannot be accessed/contacted through the internet for want of any e-mail contact address, even in today's atmosphere of the clarion call by Anna Hazare to revolt asgainst corruption and the general demand for transparency in governance? The only way to forward all this discussion to the FCRA is to send by post to The address to communicate with this Division is as follows: The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division,
Jaisalmer House, 26 Mansingh Road,
New Delhi-110 011.
How very thoughtful of the IAS to leep it safe and protected and totally insulated from the polluting conundrum of grievances of the ordinary people!
Jaisalmer House, 26 Mansingh Road,
New Delhi-110 011.
How very thoughtful of the IAS to leep it safe and protected and totally insulated from the polluting conundrum of grievances of the ordinary people!
One is a hospital run by the retrenched workers of a once huge factory in Howrah in Bengal. After losing their jobs, and closure of the factory, the workers did not lose their heart and entirely by their own initiative, started a hospital named as the Sramajibi Hospital under the banner of Belur Sramajibi Swasthya Prakalpa Samity. Even the patients’ cots, OT tables, etc., were manufactured/made by the workers themselves. The hospital is running for the last three decades, despite repeated attempts by the CPIM to destroy the facility and hand over the land to the promoters. All this is part of recorded history in terms of media reports.
When the society applied for approval under section 35AC for its ongoing expansion scheme, it was summarily rejected, after several hints to the attending volunteers to “meet” a certain person in the CBDT. As the hospital runs entirely on public donations and on a shoestring budget and pays only token allowances to the helpers (no salary is paid), it was not possible to garner the funds and do the needful. But a sympathizer-worker (a journalist himself) did venture to see an officer who curtly advised him to engage a given CA in Delhi to get the work done. Anyway, after the rejection of this first application, and as advised by a knowledgeable sympathizer, a second application has been made and it is certain to be rejected again for the failure on the part of the society to abide by the unwritten law of punitive taxation!
The same experience followed with the FCRA too. The first application was summarily rejected after a long wait and the refusal by the officials to talk to the aforesaid sympathizer-worker unless approached through one of the department’s (unofficial) panel of “aggregators”. As this would cost very heavily, the society could not afford to do so and the application stood rejected. Another application has been filed and is yet to be decided pending “field inspection” which was never done earlier. It can be expected that the officials shall repeat their performance for want of failure on the part of the society to listen to the officials. It is really open and naked and, under the present system, one can never even venture to meet the all-powerful officials, notwithstanding a thousand Anna Hazares.
Another NGO, always in need of funds, and working with and for the marginalized section of the society (Society for Regional Research and Analysis, Delhi) took 6 years in obtaining their first ever section 80G certificate! The Asstt. Director directly demanded money quoting the Director who refused to meet the official representatives of the society. It was learnt that such bif officers like the DIO, the DG, the Addl. Director, etc. of the department dealing with 80G matters of income tax DO NOT MEET ORDINARY PUBLIC! The dealing clerks and the then officer advised the workers to come through/with a certain CA, but that would cost several times more than what SRRA collects by way of public donations and alms! So the Director rejected the application twice on the found that it WAS NOT RUNNING A SCHOOL as claimed, though the dealing Asstt. Director never visited the school or asked the society to “arrange” for his visit and the accompanying facilities. The Director never heard them either. I understood later that, ultimately the certificate was granted no doubt, only recently, thanks to the intervention of a kind political figure which was frowned upon by the Director and his team.
Yes, the concerned societies all failed to take recourse to the RTI. The reason is, once this is done, the officers concerned will destroy the initiatives.
I am sorry for the length of my comments provoked by the gospel of the retired high officials. E&OE.
All that is written about the NGO sector is absolutely true.
As one professionally dealing with this sector- the remedy to deal with a whole lot of flaws is to bring the Public Trust Act, Income Tax and FCRA provisions under a common umbrella. FCRA under Ministry of Home makes no sense whatsoever.
Can NAC at least hear me?
Many thanks for this excellent , excellent analysis. Once again request you to write for Moneylife!
And thanks for your erudite observations on many of our pieces.
regards
sucheta