Indian residents sent $528.7 million abroad to buy property in 2025-26, a 64% rise from the previous financial year, even as total outward remittances under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme declined by about 2%. The increase is more than a story about affluent Indians buying homes overseas. It shows how international real estate is becoming part of a broader wealth, mobility and family-planning strategy, while also exposing the limits of using remittance data as a direct measure of completed property investment.
The figures, reported from the Keys Beyond Borders survey by Knight Frank India and IREX, place overseas property within a changing portfolio structure. Respondents said international real estate represented an average 13% of their wealth, compared with around 5% a decade ago. Domestic property accounted for another 32%, putting real estate’s combined share at 45% of reported wealth.
That concentration is important because it connects the overseas property market to the same financial behaviour that has long shaped Indian urban real estate: property is treated not only as shelter, but also as an asset, a store of value and a mechanism for intergenerational security. The difference is that the asset is now increasingly located outside India, sometimes in markets promoted through rental returns, capital appreciation and residency programmes.
The RBI data cited in the report show that property-related remittances rose from $322.82 million in 2024-25 to $528.7 million in 2025-26. However, these transfers represented around 1.8% of total outward remittances under the scheme. The increase is therefore substantial within the property category, but it remains a relatively small part of overall outward remittance flows.
That distinction matters for interpreting the trend. A sharp percentage increase from a comparatively small base does not establish that overseas property has become a mass-market investment channel. It does, however, indicate that international real estate is gaining visibility among a segment of Indian buyers with the financial capacity and institutional access to navigate foreign markets.
The survey found that 61% of respondents considering overseas property were motivated by rental income and capital appreciation. Yet residency and Golden Visa opportunities ranked first among five broader factors influencing purchase decisions. Portfolio diversification, currency hedging, business expansion, tax benefits, children’s education and lifestyle improvement were also identified as considerations.
This combination of motives makes overseas property different from a straightforward search for yield. A buyer may be evaluating a home simultaneously as an investment, a potential base for family mobility and a hedge against currency or domestic economic risks. The property transaction is therefore connected to migration, education, business expansion and residency policy, not only to the local housing market in the destination country.
The choice of destinations reflects that wider calculation. Respondents were considering the UAE, Greece, Thailand, Portugal, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Bali in Indonesia, Canada and Malaysia. Georgia, Cyprus, Malta and Latvia were also attracting interest partly because of residency programmes, according to the report.
But the presence of a residency programme does not mean that a property purchase automatically grants residency or citizenship. Eligibility depends on the rules of the relevant country and programme. This is a crucial distinction in a market where property advertisements may place returns, lifestyle and mobility benefits alongside one another, even though each is governed by separate legal and financial conditions.
## Overseas property and the limits of the remittance data
The RBI’s Liberalised Remittance Scheme generally permits a resident Indian to remit up to $250,000 per financial year for permitted transactions, including eligible overseas property purchases. The limit is cumulative across permitted transactions and is not a separate $250,000 allowance reserved exclusively for property.
This makes the survey’s stated investment range particularly important to read carefully. As many as 85% of respondents planned to invest between $250,000 and $1 million in overseas property. That range cannot be treated as the amount one individual can automatically remit in a single financial year. Eligible family members may pool remittances for a purchase only where applicable conditions, including co-ownership requirements, are met.
The regulatory structure means that the headline value of an intended purchase and the amount that can legally be transferred in one year are not necessarily the same. Buyers must also comply with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Indian tax requirements and the property ownership and taxation rules of the destination country.
The report’s own limitations reinforce the need for caution. It states that the survey records intentions rather than completed purchases, includes respondents and intermediaries answering on buyers’ behalf, and is not representative of all Indian overseas property buyers. Knight Frank India chairman and managing director Shishir Baijal said the findings mapped the intentions of resident Indians within the applicable LRS framework rather than the entirety of overseas property investment by Indians.
As a result, the $528.7 million remittance figure and the survey’s proposed investment range describe different parts of the market. The RBI number records a regulated financial flow. The survey describes stated preferences among a selected group. Neither figure alone can establish the total value of overseas property bought by Indians, the number of completed transactions or the geographic distribution of those purchases.
## What the buyer profile reveals
The survey describes a buyer group concentrated among business owners, traders and industrialists, who made up 53% of respondents. Corporate executives and working professionals accounted for 30%, while first-generation entrepreneurs represented 11%. The professional segment’s share had risen from 7% a decade earlier.
Age and existing ownership also point to an established wealth segment rather than first-time buyers entering property markets for the first time. About 76% of respondents were aged between 35 and 50, and 84% already owned property overseas. The findings therefore suggest a market in which repeat ownership and portfolio expansion are significant features.
The preferred property types also show a concentration in conventional residential formats. Apartments and condominiums accounted for 69% of preferences, followed by villas and townhouses at 26%. Penthouses represented 4% and branded residences 1%. About 76% of respondents were considering homes measuring between 1,500 and 2,500 sq ft, with 49% preferring 2,000 to 2,500 sq ft and 27% choosing 1,500 to 2,000 sq ft.
These preferences matter to the built environment because they link cross-border capital to specific forms of housing demand. The survey does not establish that these preferences are translating into completed construction or occupancy. It does show, however, that the intended purchase is generally a substantial residential asset rather than a narrow or highly specialised property product.
## The risks behind the returns narrative
Rental income and capital appreciation are the leading stated reasons for considering a purchase, but the report notes several costs and uncertainties that can alter the outcome. Local taxes, maintenance expenses, vacancy periods, currency fluctuations, restrictions on foreign ownership and resale prospects all affect the financial performance of an overseas property.
This is where the difference between a property price and a property investment becomes significant. An advertised price may not include transaction charges, recurring maintenance, taxes or compliance costs. Similarly, an expected rental yield may not account for vacancy, local management expenses or restrictions on how the property can be used.
Currency movements create another layer of exposure. A property may rise in value in its local currency while producing a different return when measured in Indian rupees. The survey identifies currency hedging as one of the factors influencing decisions, but the available material does not establish how buyers are managing that risk or whether intended purchases are financed through a structured hedging strategy.
Residency-linked purchases carry a similar distinction between marketing appeal and legal outcome. A country may offer a residency route connected to investment, but thresholds, qualifying assets, application rules and programme conditions can change. Buying a property, by itself, does not establish a right to residency or citizenship.
## The larger urban and financial question
The overseas property trend shows how urban real estate is increasingly embedded in global household finance. For a segment of Indian residents, the relevant property market is no longer limited to the city where they live or work. It may include a home near a business base, an apartment intended for rental income, a future residence for children or an asset linked to a residency programme.
For policymakers, the challenge is to distinguish between legitimate diversification and an incomplete understanding of cross-border obligations. The LRS framework, FEMA compliance, tax rules and destination-country regulations create a chain of responsibilities that extends well beyond the purchase agreement. For buyers, the central issue is not only whether an overseas property appears attractive, but whether the intended return, use and legal status survive closer scrutiny.
The evidence confirms that overseas property remittances grew sharply in 2025-26 and that international real estate has a larger stated place in the wealth portfolios of the surveyed group than it did a decade ago. It does not establish the final value of completed purchases, represent all Indian buyers or prove that every stated investment objective will be achieved. The developments to monitor are the conversion of intentions into transactions, the destination-wise distribution of remittances and any changes to Indian remittance rules or foreign residency programmes.
