Money as an NRI: two countries, one set of rules each

There are two definitions of non-resident, and they can disagree

Two rulebooks govern money that sits in India while you do not. The Income-tax Act 2025 decides what India taxes, using a count of days. The foreign-exchange law decides what you are permitted to hold, buy and send out, using the purpose of your going. They are separate tests and they can give different answers about the same person on the same day.

That is not a technicality, and it is worth getting straight before anything else, because it is the reason the usual advice contradicts itself. One article tells you that you become a non-resident the day you fly out. Another tells you that you stay a resident until you have been away long enough. Both are right, about two different questions.

Take the ordinary case of someone who leaves partway through a tax year to take up work abroad, with no fixed date to come back. Under the exchange-control test the purpose of the going is what matters, so the status can change on the day of departure. Under the tax test nothing changes on any particular day; the year ends, the days in India are counted, and the answer arrives retrospectively.

So there is a stretch — often most of a year — in which the correct position is to operate non-resident bank accounts and to file an Indian return on worldwide income at the same time. Neither half is a mistake. They are answers to different questions asked by different authorities.

There is a third box worth knowing exists. Between plain non-residence and full residence the Act carries a transitional status, which limits India's reach over foreign income for a period after someone becomes resident again. It matters most to a reader who is returning, and it is the reason the return year deserves its own section below.

A resident account does not survive your becoming non-resident

A resident savings account is not a container. It is a permission granted to a person resident in India, and the permission is attached to the holder rather than to the money. Cease to be a person resident in India and continuing to operate that account in that form is a contravention of the exchange-control rules, whatever the balance is doing.

The fix is smaller than the problem sounds. The account is not closed and the money does not move: it is redesignated, which means the same account number and the same history are re-papered as an ordinary non-resident rupee account. The bank does the work once you tell it. The reason so few people do it is that nothing forces them — the bank has no way of knowing that you moved.

Which produces a failure mode worth naming, because it is silent for years and then expensive in a single afternoon: the account nobody told. Money keeps arriving, standing instructions keep running, and the first person to notice is a bank officer processing a repatriation request, a buyer's lawyer on a property sale, or an heir. The problem is not that the money is at risk. It is that the transaction you actually needed is now blocked behind an unwinding exercise nobody planned for.

Two other records hold your residential status separately, and neither learns anything from the bank. A demat and trading account carries a status field of its own, and so does every mutual fund folio through its know-your-customer record. Telling one institution tells one institution.

Doing this properly is not free. Once the account is a non-resident account, payments of interest into it are governed by the deduction rules written for payments to non-residents rather than the ones a resident is used to, and the paperwork around moving money out becomes real work. The correct position costs something. The incorrect one costs more, later, at a moment you did not choose.

An account left behind also runs a clock, and the wording of that clock catches non-residents in particular. What has to happen to reset it is a customer-induced transaction; go two years without one and the account is inoperative, and after ten years unclaimed the balance moves to the Depositor Education and Awareness Fund — still yours, still claimable, but claimed through the bank rather than found in a statement. A credit the bank makes on its own is not something you induced, so an account you left funded and untouched can run that clock down while its balance quietly grows. Which is the ordinary condition of an Indian account kept open by someone who lives elsewhere, and why dormancy and how to claim an unclaimed deposit are worth reading before rather than after.

Three accounts, three jobs, decided by where the money came from

The three non-resident accounts are usually compared as though they were competing deposit products. They are not competing at all. Each one is a permission, not a product, and which one a rupee belongs in is decided by where that rupee came from.

Read the last column, because it carries the part that gets missed. An NRE balance is freely repatriable and denominated in rupees, which are two independent facts. Repatriable describes permission — nobody will stop the money leaving. It says nothing about how many dollars, dirhams or pounds it converts into when it gets there.

An FCNR deposit removes that exposure by never converting: the deposit is made, held and repaid in the foreign currency, and the bank absorbs the rupee movement. That is a real service and it is not given away. It is paid for in the interest rate, which is set in the deposit's own currency rather than in rupees.

Which explains a comparison that looks like free money and is not. A rupee deposit rate and a dollar deposit rate are two different currencies' interest rates, and the gap between them is closely tied to what the forward market charges to exchange one for the other at a future date — if it were not, the two could be traded against each other for a certain profit. The differential is not a spread you collect. It is the market's price for the currency exposure you are agreeing to hold, and whether the actual exchange rate moves by more or less than that price is the risk itself. The mechanics of that exposure are in the rupee and your portfolio.

One question the three raise together is whether deposit insurance reaches them at all. The cover is ₹5 lakh per depositor per bank, and the exclusion list runs to deposits of foreign governments, of central and state governments, inter-bank deposits, deposits received outside India, and any deposit specifically exempted by the Corporation. The phrase "deposits received outside India" in that list is not obviously the same thing as a deposit held by a person living outside India, and the difference decides whether a balance is inside the cover or not. It is a fair question to put to your bank in writing, and the cover itself is explained in deposit insurance.

Money is not upgraded by moving it between your own accounts

What may be sent out of India is decided by where the money came from, and the record of where it came from is the account it was credited to. Not the account it happens to be sitting in today. That is the reverse of the intuition most people bring to their own bank accounts, where money is just money once it has arrived.

So the sequence runs one way. Foreign earnings credited to the external account are repatriable because their origin is foreign and the credit recorded that. Rent from a flat in Pune is Indian in origin, is credited to the India-source account, and stays inside that account's repatriation regime no matter how many internal transfers it survives. Moving it across to the repatriable account is treated as a repatriation in its own right, with the same ceiling and the same certification, rather than as a reclassification of the money.

Put the mechanism in one line: origin decides, not location. And the practical consequence is that there is no later document which establishes an origin the original credit never recorded — which makes the choice of landing account, made in a hurry on the day a payment arrives, the decision that matters.

The error this produces is ordinary and hard to reverse. Foreign salary is paid into the India-source account because that is the one that was already open, or because it was the account the employer had on file from before. The money's origin was outside India; the credit says otherwise; and the treatment its origin would have earned it is now something you have to argue for rather than something the record shows.

Two people with identical Indian assets and identical foreign salaries can therefore face completely different answers on how much they can move out in a year. Nothing about their wealth differs. What differs is which account each payment landed in on the day it arrived.

Leaving India does not move income that arises in India

India taxes on two hooks, and moving abroad only removes one of them. A resident is taxed on worldwide income. A non-resident is taxed on income that accrues, arises or is received in India — so the source hook survives your change of address entirely.

Which makes the list concrete. Rent from an Indian property, a dividend from an Indian company, interest on the India-source account, a gain on Indian listed shares, a pension paid from India: every one of those has its source in India, and India's claim on it does not depend on where you live or on whether another country is also taxing it. The basics of how the charge is built up are in income tax basics.

What genuinely changes is the collection machinery, and this is the part that surprises people who ran the same portfolio as residents. For a resident, most Indian income arrives intact and is settled at filing. For a non-resident, tax is deducted by whoever is paying — the tenant, the buyer, the company, the bank — at the moment of payment, and the deduction attaches to the payment, not the profit inside it.

That distinction is a cash-flow event rather than a tax cost, and the difference between those two things is worth holding on to. Sell a property held for years and the buyer's obligation is computed on the consideration changing hands, not on the gain buried inside it — so a large sum can be withheld against a modest gain and comes back only through a filed return or a certificate obtained in advance permitting a lower deduction. Nobody has taken your money. They have taken it early, and the interval is yours to fund. The general mechanism is in tax deducted at source.

What is withheld and what is finally charged are two different figures, and the charge itself is asset by asset. On STT-paid listed equity and equity-oriented fund units, s.198 of the Income-tax Act 2025 charges 12.5% on long-term gains above an annual ₹1.25 lakh, with 12 months separating a short-term gain from a long-term one. Property runs on a different holding period and a different rate, which is the point of reading capital gains on property alongside capital gains tax rather than carrying one set of numbers across.

One asymmetry is specific to renting out a property you no longer live near. A tenant paying a resident landlord has a narrow duty — 2% where monthly rent exceeds ₹50,000, and only where the tenant is an individual or Hindu undivided family outside the tax-audit requirement. Pay a non-resident landlord and a different provision governs, with its own basis and its own compliance attached to the tenant. The point is not the rate. It is that your tenant's duty changed when your residence did, and the person most likely to discover that late is the tenant.

And because deducted tax is a credit rather than a settlement, a return is usually where the answer is finally computed. Where the deduction has fallen short, the duty to pay through the year rather than at filing applies to a non-resident on the same terms as anyone else — the mechanism, and the interest that runs on a missed checkpoint, are in advance tax and TDS, and the filing itself in the ITR filing guide.

A note on deductions, because they are the selling point of a great many Indian products marketed to people living abroad. Under s.202 the new regime applies by default, and it carries neither the s.123 deduction, worth up to ₹1.5 lakh under the old regime, nor the s.126 health premium deduction of ₹25,000, raised to ₹50,000 where the insured is a senior citizen. Anyone choosing an Indian investment or policy for the deduction attached to it first needs to know which regime they are actually in; the comparison is in the old regime against the new.

Each country runs its own rulebook, and the treaty is the only bridge

The second half of the title is the part that trips people who have got the Indian half right. Nothing in Indian law tells the country you live in what to do, and nothing in that country's law relieves you of Indian tax on Indian income. Each applies its own residence test, its own definition of source, and its own rates, to the same person and often to the same rupee.

Residence is not even the only hook a country can use. Most tax on residence; at least one major jurisdiction taxes its citizens on worldwide income wherever they live, so for those readers leaving does not end anything. Which hook applies to you is a question about the other country's law, and no Indian article can answer it.

Where both countries do reach the same income, the double-taxation avoidance agreement between them is the bridge, and it works in one of two shapes. Either it allocates the income to one country and the other exempts it, or both tax it and one gives credit for the tax paid in the other. A treaty does not reduce the total tax to the lower of the two rates as a matter of course — it prevents the same income being taxed twice over, which is a narrower and more accurate description of what relief means.

Here is the consequence that separates two readers with identical Indian portfolios. A credit is only worth something if there is a tax bill in the other country to set it against. Someone resident in a country that levies no personal income tax has nothing to credit against, so the Indian tax on Indian income is the final cost of holding that asset rather than a timing difference. Someone resident in a country that taxes the same income at a higher rate is, in effect, topping up to that country's rate. The Indian rules are identical in both cases; the after-tax outcome is not remotely.

Claiming relief is a documentary exercise rather than an argument. It generally requires a certificate of residence issued by the other country's tax authority, together with the declaration India prescribes, filed for the year concerned. The practical failure is not being refused relief. It is missing the paperwork deadline and paying the domestic rate while the entitlement sits unclaimed.

Coming back flips both tests, on two different dates

Return is the mirror image of departure, and it catches people for exactly the same reason: the two statuses change again, and again not together.

Under the exchange-control test you become a person resident in India when you return with the intention of staying, which can be the day you land. So the non-resident accounts stop being appropriate immediately — the external account is redesignated as a resident account, and there is a separate resident foreign-currency account for balances you want to keep in a foreign currency rather than convert. Under the tax test, the year you return is counted like any other year, which can leave you a non-resident for the whole of it, and the transitional status mentioned earlier may then limit India's reach over your foreign income for a period after that.

So the ordering is immediately, then by arithmetic. Accounts change on arrival; tax status changes when the year is counted. Anyone who assumes one date governs both will be early on one and late on the other.

This is also the one window in which the sequence of a transaction genuinely changes its treatment, because a redemption or a transfer can fall either side of a status change. That is not a reason to do anything in particular. It is a reason to find out which side of the line a planned transaction falls on before it happens rather than during the following filing season.

Five errors specific to holding money where you do not live

1. Telling one institution. The bank is redesignated; the demat account and the fund folios still say resident. Each record is held separately and none of them updates the others.
2. Comparing NRE and NRO as though they were rival deposit products. They are permissions attached to the origin of the money, and a rupee is not eligible for both.
3. Reading repatriable as protected. Free to leave the country and denominated in rupees are two independent facts, and only the first one is what "repatriable" means.
4. Assuming one cancels the other. Paying tax where you live does not extinguish India's claim on income arising in India; a treaty allocates and credits, and a credit needs a bill to sit against.
5. Leaving an Indian account untouched. Only a customer-induced transaction resets the clock, and a credit the bank makes on its own is not one — so the account is inoperative after two years and the balance moves to the Depositor Education and Awareness Fund after ten years, with a stale nomination far harder to fix from another country.

The first four share one root: treating residence as one fact. It is two facts, held by two authorities, tested in two different ways, and changing on two different dates — and each of those four is what happens when a decision taken under one of them is assumed to have settled the other. The fifth is the different problem underneath all of them, which is that nobody involved is close enough to notice.

The part of this that is arithmetic rather than rules

Most of the above is structure, and structure does not need a tool. One thing here is arithmetic, and it is the thing an NRI investor is most likely to get wrong by simply not doing it.

A scheme's return is computed in rupees. If your spending currency is not the rupee, that number is not your return — the money went in on dated instalments at whatever the exchange rate was on each of those days, and it comes out at another rate on another day. The honest calculation converts every cashflow at its own date and computes the internal rate of return on the converted series, which is a second, separate number that can differ from the rupee figure by more than the fund's own performance did. Because the cashflows land on irregular dates, the measure that handles them is XIRR, worked through in XIRR against CAGR.

FNOTrader's Mutual Funds app runs on the full AMFI history of daily per-unit scheme values — the net asset value, or NAV — around 34 million rows of it, refreshed nightly at 22:30 IST. For any scheme and period it reports invested amount against value, XIRR on the actual dates money went in, the rolling-return distribution rather than one trailing figure, and the worst drawdown along the way. It computes in rupees, it does not know your residential status, and it applies nobody's tax.

One access point worth checking before planning around it: some fund houses restrict subscriptions from investors resident in particular jurisdictions, in response to the reporting obligations those countries impose. It varies between fund houses rather than being uniform, so it is a question for the specific fund house rather than a general rule about NRIs.

The life-stage articles nearby — money in your thirties, money after marriage, money without a salary and financial planning for women — all assume one jurisdiction. Everything in them holds; this article is the layer that sits on top when there are two.

Nothing here is tax or investment advice, and FNOTrader is neither a chartered accountant nor a SEBI-registered investment adviser. Day-count thresholds, repatriation limits, withholding rates and treaty terms all change; the shape of the constraint — two definitions, two authorities, two dates — is what carries between years.

Common questions

Continue reading

More in Money by Life Stage · App: Mutual Funds · Definitions: glossary · Free tools: calculators · All: every article