Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1225 - AT - Income TaxRoyalty receipt - production work undertaken is a live coverage of event - Whether production work undertaken by the appellant qualify as "Royalty" under the provisions of Section 9(i)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 13 of the DTAA - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel shows that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by a decision of the coordinate bench, in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 [2019 (2) TMI 1803 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in favour of the assessee. The only reason, on account of which the DRP has declined relief to the assessee, is to keep the matter alive for the SLP, if any, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee and hold that the receipts in question cannot be treated as “royalty”. The assessee succeeds on the issue. Fees for Technical Services - There is a difference between the technology involved in the production of live coverage feed of cricket matches and the technology required to broadcast the same in the required quality. Hence, in order to ensure and maintain quality of live coverage feed, it becomes necessary on the part of the assessee to specify or oversee the technology available with the broadcasters so that the same does not compromise on the quality and compatibility. The specification of the technical requirements does not mean that the assessee has supplied the technology involved in the production of live coverage feed to the broad casters. If that be the case, the broadcasters should be in a position to use the technology in order to produce the live feed on their own. We notice that the revenue has not established that the broadcasters (who are acting on behalf of the BCCI) or the BCCI itself has acquired the technical expertise from the assessee which would enable them to produce the live coverage feeds on their own after the conclusion of IPL 2008 and IPL 2009 cricket matches. In that case the essential condition of “make available” clause fails and hence the amount received by the assessee cannot be considered as “Fee for technical services” in terms of Article 13(4)(c) of the DTAA entered between India and UK. DRP observation that the live coverage of cricket matches involve instant and continuous production and broadcasting of live matches. The existing program would keep merging with the new work. Further, the broadcasters are able to split the program content in order to insert advertisements not bring the payment under the category of “Fee for technical services”. It only shows the technical expertise of the assessee to produce a flexible program content to give enhanced quality of viewing the live matches. - Decided in favour of assessee
|