ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. (International Taxation)-2(1), Kolkata (PAN: AACCA6818K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No. 477/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (International Taxation)-2(1), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 19.09.2016 Date of pronouncement: 14.10.2016 For Revenue: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR For Assessee: Shri R.N.Bajoria Sr. Advocate & Shri Akhilesh Gupta, Advocate ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: Both these cross appeals by revenue and assessee are arising out of order of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Kolkata dated 29.12.2014. Assessment was framed by JDIT(Intl. Taxation), Range-1, Kolkata u/s. 143(3)/144C(1) of Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) for AY 2010-11 vide his order dated 10.03.2014. For sake of brevity, we dispose of both appeals by this consolidated order. ITA No. 477/Kol/2015 Assessee Appeal 2. first issue to be decided in appeal of assessee is as to whether ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is justified in upholding addition of Rs. 14,57,051/- on account of interest income in relation to advances classified as Non-Performing Advances (NPAs) in facts and circumstances of case. 2 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 2.1. brief facts of this issue is that assessee is bank incorporated in Netherlands with limited liability with branches in India. In India, assessee is registered as scheduled bank in terms of Schedule II of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. main activities fo assessee in India comprise of accepting deposits, giving loans, discounting /collection of bills, issue of letters of credit/ guarantees, executing forward transaction in foreign currencies for importers / exporters , money market lending / borrowings, investment in securities, etc in terms of prevailing rules and regulations governing such transactions. ld AO observed that assessee bank had not recognized interest income in respect of advances, which were overdue for more than 3 months , in profit and loss account in accordance with RBI guidelines applicable to banks. 2.2. assessee replied that since account has been classified as NPA as per RBI prudential norms for income recognition, interest income on such advances had to be recognized only on receipt basis. Since there was no receipt of interest on these NPA accounts during year, no interest income need to be recognized on accrual basis as per RBI prudential norms for income recognition. ld AO show caused assessee stating that unless advances were overdue for more than 6 months as required under Rule 6EA of IT Rules, it cannot be classified as sticky advance or doubtful debts as stipulated in section 43D of Act and accordingly sought to add back interest income on accrual basis in assessment. assessee replied that assessee had classified its advances into NPA as per RBI prudential norms laid down in this regard which is mandatory in nature. As per said prudential norms, if account is overdue for more than 3 months (reduced from 6 months to 3 months) , then interest income thereon should not be recognized as income unless it is actually received. It was submitted that as per Accounting Standard -9 (AS 9) issued by ICAI , where there is uncertainty about collection of income / revenue, recognition of such income / revenue is to be postponed to extent of uncertainty involved, which is also in accordance with theory of taxing only real income, which is settled law as per various judicial precedents. assessee argued that application of section 43D of Act was specifically intended to clarify income recognition by banks to be in sync with RBI guidelines and was never intended to be static norm. Thus, purposive interpretation should be followed keeping in mind legislative object. assessee also referred to Para (xii) of CBDT s Instruction No. 17 / 2008 dated 26.11.2008 which directed assessing authorities to bear in mind that bank has to 3 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 follow system of accounting and prepare accounts as mandated inter alia by RBI guidelines. Without prejudice to above, Rule 6EA of Rules, which deviates from current RBI guidelines, is in conflict with parent provisions of section 43D of Act and it is well settled that Rules, being subordinate legislation cannot override express mandate of parent statutory provision. Reliance in this regard was placed on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Sirpur Paper Mills reported in 237 ITR 41 (SC). 2.3. Without prejudice to above, it was submitted that Rule 6EA is practically difficult to be implemented, since categories of advances prescribed therein do not exist anymore as classification of advances have changed and RBI now follows international norm of classification (viz. standard, sub-standard, doubtful and loss assets). ld AO relied on judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs CIT reported in (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC) . assessee stated that said decision is distinguishable from facts of assessee bank in as much as same pertained to claim of deduction in respect of Provision for NPA in hands of Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) of Act which is available only to banks. Even said decision did not contemplate recognition of interest income in respect of NPA accounts on accrual basis. assessee also submitted that said accounts remained overdue for more than 180 days as on 31.3.2010 (i.e next financial year) and hence it had become NPA even as per Rule 6EA of Rules in subsequent financial year and hence said adjustment is only timing difference and there is no loss to revenue. assessee also submitted that Rule 6EA was in conformity with RBI guidelines at time of its introduction. However, subsequently, RBI guidelines have been tightened without any corresponding amendment in Rule 6EA thereby presently leading to disconnect between Rule 6EA and RBI guidelines. assessee placed reliance on following decisions in support of its various contentions in this regard:- (a) CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 125 of 2013 dated 8.10.2013) (SC) (b) American Express Bank Ltd vs ACIT reported in 55 SOT 136 (Mumb ITAT) (c) CIT vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd reported in (2011) 330 ITR 440 (Del) (d) DIT vs Brahamputra Capital Financial Services Ltd reported in(2011) 12 taxmann.com 387 (Del HC) (e) DCIT vs Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd reported in (2013) 29 taxmann.com 152 (Del Trib) 4 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 (f) ACIT vs Osmanabad Janta Sah. Bank Ltd reported in (2012) 32 taxmann.com 229 (Pune Trib) (g) ACIT vs Solapur Siddeshwar Sahakari Bank in ITA Nos. 2220 & 2221 /PN/2013 dated 31.10.2014 of Pune Tribunal (h) Solapur District Central Co-op Bank LTd vs ACIT in ITA No. 495/PN/2012 dated 29.9.2014 of Pune Tribunal 2.4. ld AO however not convinced with aforesaid explanations proceeded to add interest income on NPA accounts on accrual basis, which was also confirmed by ld DRP. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us on following ground:- 1(a) On facts and in circumstances of case, learned Assessing Officer ( AO ) has legally erred in proposing and Hon ble Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP ) further erred in confirming proposed addition of Rs.14,57,051 on account of interest income in relation to advances which are classified as Non Performing Advances ( NPAs ) in accordance with Reserve Bank of India ( RBI ) guidelines issued in this regard. (b) Without prejudice to above ground, Appellant prays that aforesaid interest income should be allowed as deduction while computing total income of Bank under provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) in subsequent Financial Year (FY) i.e. FY 2010-11. 2.5. ld AR reiterated submissions made before lower authorities and placed reliance on decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd reported in 330 ITR 440 (Del) on impugned issue, among others. In response to this, ld DR argued that provisions of Rule 6EA states non-recognition of interest income only if loan account if overdue for more than 3 months. He argued that recognition of income as contemplated by RBI prudential norms are not binding on provisions of Income Tax Act and placed reliance on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs CIT reported in 320 ITR 577 (SC) in support of his proposition. assessee had not proved factum of uncertainty in collection of said advances and argued that it is also claiming provision for NPA which includes interest element also as deduction. Hence on one hand, it is not offering interest income and on other hand, it is claiming deduction towards interest component added to party s loan account balance. In defence, ld AR argued that fact of uncertainty of collection of these dues from parties were never in dispute and same is raised for first time only by ld DR. He also stated that ultimately these two loan accounts were written off in subsequent year which has been allowed deduction by ld AO including principal portion. Hence there is no question of recognizing any interest income on accrual basis in respect of such sticky loans. 5 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 2.6 We have heard rival submissions and perused materials available on record including detailed paper book filed by assessee. facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence same are not reiterated for sake of brevity. It is not in dispute before lower authorities that loan accounts had become sticky and doubtful of recovery. only contention of revenue is that section 43D of Act read with Rule 6EA of Rules permits accounting of interest income on receipt basis only if loan account had become overdue for more than six months, whereas in instant case, it is more than three months but less than six months as on 31.3.2010. loan account becoming overdue and becoming sticky was never disputed. next issue is whether prudential norms of RBI for income recognition would override provisions of IT Act. This issue has been addressed by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Southern Technologies Ltd supra in context of allowability of deduction towards Provision for NPA . We find that same decision clearly stated that interest income on NPA accounts should not be recognized on accrual basis which is in line with RBI prudential norms for income recognition. This fine distinction has been duly considered in decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar ltd supra. When account becoming NPA is not disputed by revenue, recognition of income is to be done only on receipt basis which is in consonance with real income theory. In these circumstances and respectfully following decisions of Hon ble Delhi High Court in 330 ITR 440 and various other decisions referred to supra, we hold that interest income on NPA accounts should not be assessed on mercantile basis and same is to be taxed only on receipt basis. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee are allowed. 3. next issue to be decided in this appeal of assessee is as to whether ld DRP is justified in confirming addition of Rs. 1,02,54,946/- on account of deemed short term capital gains in facts and circumstances of case. 3.1. brief facts of this issue is that Bank had sold residential building (from 5% block of asset) with opening written down value ('WDV') of Rs. 1,06,53,958/- for total consideration of Rs.9,55,00,000/-, pursuant to which, block of asset ceased to exist as it was only asset in respective block. Bank had carried out some renovations in 6 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 said building in earlier period(s) and cost of such renovations were taken to 10% block of building (i.e. other than residential buildings). Such tax treatment was based on accounting classification. Total sale consideration of Rs. 9,55,00,000/- was appropriated by Bank between 5% and 10% block of assets as Rs. 8,51,55,054/- and Rs. 1,03,44,946/- respectively. Since, 5% block of asset ceased to exist, resultant gains of Rs. 7,45,91,096/- was offered to tax as deemed STCG. However, as 10% block of asset continues to exist, aforesaid appropriated sale consideration of Rs. 1,03,44,946/- was reduced from 10% block and resulted into reduced tax depreciation claim thereon under section 32 of Act. It was submitted that bank had carried out some renovations in said building in earlier periods and cost of such renovations were taken to 10% block of building (i.e other than residential building) which has also been accepted by ld AO while done assessment in earlier years. bank continued claiming depreciation on 10% block of assets u/s 32 of Act on reduced WDV, after adjusting aforesaid appropriated sale consideration since 10% block of asset continues to exist. ld AO not convinced with arguments computed short term capital gains (STCG) by adjusting appropriated sale consideration against 5% block of asset on premise that asset sold belongs to 5% block of asset and not 10% block.. Hence entire consideration of Rs 9.55 crores should have been reduced only from 5% block of asset and resultant short term capital gains in terms of section 50 of Act had to be computed, according to ld AO. This action of ld AO was also upheld by ld DRP. However, ld DRP agreed to alternative contention of assessee that since entire consideration of Rs 9.55 crores had been reduced by ld AO in 5% block assets, then correspondingly appropriated sale consideration reduced by assessee in 10% block of assets need to be increased and accordingly directed ld AO to recomputed WDV of 10% block and grant depreciation thereon. Aggrieved , assessee is in appeal before us on following ground:- 2. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, learned AO has erred in proposing and Hon ble DRP further erred in confirming proposed action of learned AO in making addition of Rs.1,02,54,946/- on account of deemed short term capital gains on sale of depreciable asset. 7 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 3.2. ld AR reiterated factual submissions together with accounting treatment given by assessee bank in its books of accounts. He stated that renovations carried out in earlier years had been included in 10% block of buildings along with other items and depreciation claimed accordingly which was also granted by ld AO in earlier years. Hence principle of consistency should be followed. Admittedly, what was sold was building for Rs. 9.55 crores which was lying in 5% block as well as in 10% block and hence appropriation of sale consideration thereon was rightly made by assessee bank. In response to this, ld DR took us to definition of block of assets as per section 2(11) ; provisions relating to allowance of depreciation u/s 32(1) ; meaning of written down value in respect of block of assets as per section 43(6)(c ) and provisions for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets in terms of section 50 of Act. He also took us to relevant Income Tax Depreciation chart wherein only classification of buildings is mentioned at 5% rate . He argued that 10% depreciation claimed by assessee for renovations in earlier years is wrong as assessee was eligible only for 5% as what was available with assessee was only residential building. Accordingly, he supported orders of lower authorities. 3.3. We have heard rival submissions. facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence same are not reiterated for sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that assessee had 5% block as well as 10% block for buildings in its Income Tax Depreciation schedule. It is not in dispute before us that renovations work carried out by assessee in subject mentioned building (which was sold in year under appeal and dispute before us) was added in 10% block by assessee in earlier years and depreciation claimed accordingly. We find that this depreciation had been granted by revenue all along. Going by principle of consistency, there is no need to disturb said stand of revenue. But since entire building ( including renovated portion) was sold during year under appeal for Rs. 9.55 crores, we find that assessee bank had rightly allocated sale consideration towards 5% 10% block on basis of their values and computed short term capital gains u/ 50 of Act for 5% block and claimed depreciation u/s 32 of Act for 10% block. It is not in dispute that 10% block continues to exist as on 31.3.2010. In these circumstances, we find lot of force in arguments of ld AR and accordingly allow Ground No. 2 raised by assessee. 8 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 4. next issue is with regard to applicability of provisions of section 115JB of Act for assessee bank. We find that this issue has been dealt in detail by several decisions of this tribunal and other tribunals wherein it had been categorically held that provisions of section 115JB of Act are not applicable to assessee unless it is registered as company under Companies Act, 1956 and prepares its financial statements in accordance with provisions of section 211 and Part II and Part III of Schedule VI of Companies Act, 1956. We place reliance on recent decision of co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in case of UCO Bank vs DCIT reported in (2015) 64 taxmann.com 51 (Kolkata Trib) dated 27.11.2015 in this regard. In said decision, it was also held that amendment brought in by Finance Act 2012 in section 115JB of Act is applicable only from Asst Year 2013-14 onwards and not earlier. Respectfully following said judicial precedent, we hold that provisions of section 115JB of Act are not applicable to assessee bank for year under appeal. Hence ground no. 3 raised by assessee is allowed. 5. Ground No. 4 raised by assessee regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Act is only consequential in nature and does not require any adjudication. 6. Ground No. 5 raised by assessee is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 7. In result, appeal of assessee in ITA No. 477/Kol/2015 is allowed. ITA NO. 496/Kol/2015 Revenue Appeal 8. first issue to be decided in this appeal of revenue is as to whether ld DRP is justified in deleting disallowance on account of provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 2,18,00,000/- in facts and circumstances of case. 8.1. brief facts of this issue is that ld AO observed that assessee had debited sum of Rs. 416,76,96,118/- towards Payment to and provision for employees which included Rs. 2,18,00,000/- towards gratuity. Such sum of gratuity was debited to profit and loss account for year under consideration in accordance with actuarial valuation 9 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 performed by independent valuer. ld AO proposed disallowance of said provision u/s 43B of Act stating that same was not paid on or before due date of filing return of income. assessee replied stating that excess gratuity pertaining to AY 2009-10 amounting to Rs 3.48 crore (viz. Rs.2.23 crores on account of excess payment and Rs 1.25 crores on account of net credit arising pursuant to actuarial valuation) was not claimed as deduction/offered to tax in AY 2009-10. Out of above excess gratuity, Bank claimed deduction of Rs. 2,18,00,000/- in AY 2010-11 under section 43B of Act, being year in which such sum was debited to Profit and Loss Account following mercantile system of accounting (i.e. when accrued) having regard to Actuarial Valuation Report. learned AO worked out disallowance merely perusing Annexure 9 and 12 of submissions dated 9 September 2013 and 27 September 2013 filed with him by Bank, without giving opportunity of being heard to Bank to explain as to why such claim made under section 43B of Act is allowable as deduction. As liability in respect of gratuity amount was incurred by Bank only in AY 2010-11, Bank claimed deduction of same in AY 2010-11 though actual payment was made in earlier FY viz. AY 2009-10. Without prejudice to above, Bank alternatively submitted that same should be allowed as deduction in AY 2009-10, since, non-allowance of same in AY 2009-10 as well as in AY 2010-11 would result in claim of expenses going un-allowed which is not intent of provisions of section 43B of Act. assessee also placed reliance in support of its contention on decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd reported in (2008) 306 ITR 54 (Ker). ld AO however proceeded to disallow sum of Rs. 2,18,00,000/- u/s 43B of Act. assessee preferred objections before ld DRP. ld. DRP appreciated contentions of assessee and deleted disallowance. Aggrieved , revenue is in appeal before us on following ground:- 1. Whether Ld. DRP has erred in law and in facts in directing Assessing Officer to delete disallowance proposed u/s. 43B of I.T. Act, 61 of gratuity provision amounting of Rs.2,18,00,000/- on ground that gratuity has become due during year under consideration though its actual payment has already been made in preceding year? 8.2. ld DR vehemently relied on order of ld AO . In any case, it is only prior period item which is not allowable as deduction. In response to this, ld AR vehemently relied on order of ld DRP and argued that provisions of section 43B of Act 10 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 only contemplates payment of gratuity amount which has been duly done in instant case in earlier year itself. 8.3. We have heard rival submissions. We find that assessee had actually paid amount of Rs. 2,18,00,000/- in earlier year i.e in Asst Year 2009-10 itself along with other amounts. However, deduction for same has not been claimed in that year i.e in Asst Year 2009-10 and same has been claimed in year under appeal i.e year in which it had become due. We agree with argument of ld AR that spirit of section 43B of Act has been satisfied by assessee in full. We also find that reliance placed on decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court supra is well founded. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in order of ld DRP and accordingly ground no.1 raised by revenue is dismissed. 9. next ground to be de decided in this appeal is regarding adjustments to be made in computation of book profits u/s 115JB of Act in respect of excess provision written back. We have already held that provisions of section 115JB of Act are not applicable to assessee bank for year under appeal, adjudication of issue becomes academic and accordingly ground no. 2 raised by revenue is dismissed. 10. last issue to be decided in this appeal of revenue is as to whether action of ld DRP in directing ld AO on issue of granting TDS credit is justified in facts and circumstances of case. 10.1. brief facts of this issue is that ld AO observed that assessee deducted tax at source on interest payments made to its Head office / other branches located outside India. Pursuant to decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in assessee s own case in ITA No. 458 of 2005 dated 23.12.2010 which was also confirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 3.8.2012, bank was not required to deduct any tax u/s 195 of Act on interest payments made to its Head Office / Other branches. Since tax had already been remitted to account of Central Government, assessee bank requested ld AO to refund such taxes deducted which was denied by ld AO on ground that same is to be followed up with TDS Officer and hence clam cannot be entertained in income tax assessment proceedings. It was also submitted that Ld 11 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 DRP in Asst Year 2009-10 in assessee s own case had directed ld AO to grant TDS credit in assessment and grant refund accordingly. ld AO relied on CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2007 to deny refund of TDS. assessee tried to explain that said circular envisages scenario where payer is resident in India and whereas, in present case, Indian Branch of Bank being payer, is non-resident in India. It was also submitted that without prejudice to above, claim of assessee bank would not fall in any of circumstances mentioned in aforesaid circular. Aggrieved, assessee preferred objections before ld DRP. ld DRP observed that circular relied upon by ld AO relates to situation where tax was not deductible due to reasons such as cancellation of contracts, double deduction of tax or deduction at higher rate etc. In assessee s case, tax was deducted by it on interest payment to its head office and overseas branches. Accordingly it held that Circular No. 7 of 2007 is not applicable to facts of assessee bank and also observed that said TDS is duly appearing in Form No. 26AS of assessee which was directed to be verified by ld AO with reference to TDS certificate and allow credit accordingly. Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us on following grounds:- 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Ld.DRP had jurisdiction to give direction to Assessing Officer on issue of giving TDS credit, despite fact that credit of TDS in no way increases or decreases returned income or loss of assessee and therefore, as per section 144((2) of I.T.Act'61, assessee was not eligible to file objection on this ground. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Ld.DRP erred in Law by holding that circular number 7 of 2007 is not applicable in instant case. 5. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Ld.DRP erred in Law by directing A.O to give TDS credit amounting to Rs.10,19,31,487/- deducted from payment of interest to its Headquarters & other branches even though corresponding income was not shown by assessee in its Income Tax return as required u/s.199 of I.T.Act'61. 6. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, assessee should have claimed refund from jurisdictional TDS Officer and therefore Ld.DRP erred in Law by directing A.O to give credit to tax amounting to Rs.10,19,31,487/- deducted from payment of interest to its H.Q.& other branches. 10.2. ld DR vehemently relied on order of ld AO. In response to this, ld AR argued that monies have been lying with Income Tax Department , whether it is TDS officer or Assessing Officer. He argued that said issue was also accepted by ld DRP in subsequent year in assessee s own case and no appeal has been preferred against that order by revenue in view of prevailing statutory provisions. 12 ITA No. 496-477/Kol/2015 Royal Bank of Scotland NV, AY 2010-11 10.3. We have heard rival submissions. facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence same are not reiterated for sake of brevity. circumstances in which said TDS has been remitted to account of Central Government and circumstances based on which refund of same is claimed by assessee is not disputed by revenue before us. We find that revenue is unjustly enriched by TDS amount paid by assessee and since said TDS is duly reflected in Form 26AS of assessee , assessee is entitled for credit of said TDS in his assessment which revenue has got no authority to deny as per law. Accordingly, we find that direction given by ld DRP to ld AO to grant credit of TDS is in order and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, Grounds 3 to 6 raised by revenue are dismissed. 11. Ground No. 7 raised by revenue in its appeal is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 12. In result, appeal of revenue in ITA No. 496/Kol/2015 is dismissed. 13. To sum up, appeal of assessee in ITA No. 477/Kol/2015 is allowed and that of revenue in ITA No. 496/Kol/2015 is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 14.10.2016 Sd/- Sd/- (N.V. Vasudevan) (M. Balaganesh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 14th October, 2016 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of order forwarded to: 1. APPELLANT DCIT (International Taxation)-2(1), Kolkata. 2 Respondent Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Azimgunj House, Ground Floor, 7, Camac Street, Kolkata-700 017. 3. CIT(A), Kolkata 4. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /True Copy, By order, Asstt. Registrar. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (International Taxation)-2(1), Kolkata v. Royal Bank of Scotland N.V