TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether payment for live telecast of horse races was consideration for transfer of any copyright so as to constitute royalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and attract deduction at source. (ii) Whether such live telecast could alternatively be treated as scientific work within the royalty definition.
Issue (i): Whether payment for live telecast of horse races was consideration for transfer of any copyright so as to constitute royalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and attract deduction at source.
Analysis: The royalty definition in section 9(1)(vi) read with section 194J was construed in the light of the Copyright Act, 1957. Broadcast or live telecast was held not to be a work in which copyright subsists under sections 2(y), 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court emphasized the statutory distinction between copyright and broadcast right, and held that a live telecast is a communication of visual images to the public, not an existing work capable of copyright protection. Applying purposive construction, the Court read the royalty provision as referring to copyright in literary, artistic or scientific work and rejected the Revenue's broader construction.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Payment for live telecast of horse races was not royalty on the footing of copyright.
Issue (ii): Whether such live telecast could alternatively be treated as scientific work within the royalty definition.
Analysis: The Court held that the expression scientific work in section 9(1)(vi) could not be stretched to include a live telecast of a sporting event. The inclusion of films or video tapes for television or radio broadcasting was read as referring to recorded works, not simultaneous live coverage. No factual foundation had been laid for any separate copyright in commentary, analysis, or technology used in the telecast, and the alternative contention was therefore rejected.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A live telecast of horse races was not scientific work for purposes of royalty.
Final Conclusion: As no substantial question of law arose, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed and the disallowance based on royalty failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Live broadcast or telecast of an event is not a copyrightable work under the Copyright Act, 1957, and cannot be treated as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 absent a transfer of rights in an existing protected work.
TaxTMI 
