Q.Ms. Priya Nair, already established as Resident for the previous year, was resident in India (under Section 6(1)) in 4 of the preceding 10 previous years, but had stayed in India for only 600 days during the preceding 7 previous years. Determine whether she is ROR or RNOR, and use this example to explain why satisfying only one additional condition is never enough for ROR status.

Clearing one additional condition comfortably does not compensate for failing the other.

Additional Condition (i): resident in India in at least 2 of the preceding 10 previous years — Ms. Nair was resident in 4 of those years, comfortably clearing the requirement of 2 — this condition is SATISFIED.

Additional Condition (ii): present in India for 730 days or more during the preceding 7 previous years — she was present for only 600 days, which is less than 730 — this condition FAILS.

The classification rule under Section 6(6) requires BOTH conditions to be satisfied for ROR status; satisfying one condition very comfortably (here, condition (i), with double the required number of years) does NOT make up for failing the other. Because Additional Condition (ii) fails, Ms. Nair is classified as Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident (RNOR), regardless of how easily she cleared Condition (i). …

Stopping after checking only one additional condition and assuming it decides the classification on its own — always check BOTH conditions; ROR require …