TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right of such film - There is no creation of any work as income is generated from betting on the basis of live telecast and the same was being shared on reciprocal basis and cannot be termed as royalty under the Act and therefore was not liable for tax deduction at source and consequent disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No.1919/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2013 - UBS Bedi and T S Kapoor , JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Satyam Sethi, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms Shumana Sen, Sr. DR. ORDER:- PER : T S Kapoor This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld CIT(A) dated 30.12.2010. The assessee has taken four grounds of appeals. However, the main ground of appeal is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia does not fall within the ambit of Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. No other race club pays royalty to Delhi Race Club. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the contentions of the assessee and relying upon the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) along with Explanation-2 with respect to meaning of royalty arrived at the following conclusions:- "Thus it is seen that when any person pays any amount for getting righjts/license to telecast any event (which is a copyright of particular person i.e. no one can copy if for direct telecast or deferred telecast) then the amount so paid is to be treated as royalty and very much covered u/s 9(1)(vi). Therefore, I hold that the amount paid by the assessee to other Clubs for telecasting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the outset, the Ld AR explained the modus operandi of horse races conducted by the assessee and the manner of sharing of collections was explained. It was further explained that the assessee besides live race horses display races of other clubs and on these races bets are put by various persons through bookies. It was also submitted that the races of other clubs are displayed at assessee s premises and the revenue on these bets is shared between the club hosting the race and the assessee. It was also argued that there is no copyright available in the display of races as event of live display vanishes at the end of race. It was also argued that race once conducted and actually completed looses its value as, its telecast cannot have any value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and clubs where the races actually takes place. The live telecast viewed by various persons cannot be said to be a work as word work is defined u/s 2(y) of the Act to mean:- a) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work; b) a cinematograph film; and c) sound recording. Considering the definition of copyright and work the Hon'ble Bench in the case of Neo Sports Broadcast (P) Ltd. in para 11 has observed that the question of granting exclusive right to do any work can arise only when such work has come into existence. In other words, the existence of work is a pre condition and must precede the granting of exclusive right for doing of such work. In para 12 of the same order, it was observed that proposition becom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
