Assessee-non-resident received consideration towards sub-licensing of 'designated rights' pertaining to 'live' transmissions of sporting events. AO taxed the same as royalty.Held: It was not the case of AO that live broadcast was recorded for rebroadcast purposes. Thus broadcast/live telecast was not a work within the definition of 2(y) of the Copyright Act. Accordingly, impugned income could not be taxed as royalty.
IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, A.M. & KUL BHARAT, J.M.
ESS (Formerly known as Espn Star Sports) v. ACIT
ITA No. 7903/DEL/2018
21 February, 2023
Assessee by: Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv.
Department by: Gangadhar Panda, CIT - DR
Kul Bharat, J.M.
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the assessment Order, dated 8-10-2018 passed under 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ESS (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) - 1(2)(2), New Delhi (AO) in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel - I (DRP), New Delhi, under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP and the learned assessing officer has
Ground number 1
erred in determining the total income of the Assessee at Rs 842,51,96,560 instead of Rs 90,35,46,340, as declared by the Assessee in its return of income.
Ground number 2
erred in characterizing the income earned by the Assessee from sub-licensing of Designated Rights pertaining to live transmissions of sporting events amounting to Rs 752,16,50,223 as 'Royalty under the Act.
Ground number 3