Live broadcast feed receipts are not technical fees or royalty absent transfer of know-how, copyright, equipment, or process.

Receipts from live audio-visual cricket coverage and delivery of match feeds were treated as outside fees for technical services and royalty under the India-UK DTAA and the Income-tax Act because the activity produced a finished broadcast product and did not make available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes to the payer. The contractual technical specifications were only quality and compatibility requirements for seamless broadcasting, not a transfer of technology. The arrangement also was not royalty, as the payment was for production and delivery of live coverage rather than use of copyright, equipment or any process. On identical facts, the same view applied for both assessment years, and the additions were deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether receipts from live audio-visual coverage and delivery of cricket match feeds were taxable as fees for technical services or royalty, or were outside those categories under the India-UK DTAA and the Income-tax Act; and whether the later year could depart from the earlier year on identical facts.

Analysis: The receipts arose from producing and delivering live match feeds in digital form. The activity resulted in a final program content product and did not involve making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to the payer or the broadcasters. The technical specifications in the arrangement were held to be only quality and compatibility requirements for seamless broadcasting, not a transfer of technology. The arrangement also did not amount to royalty, because the payment was for production of live coverage and not for use of, or right to use, copyright, equipment, or any process. The same factual and legal position applied to both assessment years, and no distinguishing material was shown for the later year; hence consistency required the same view.

Conclusion: The receipts were not taxable as fees for technical services or royalty. The additions were deleted, and the assessee succeeded on the substantive issue for both years.

Final Conclusion: The tax demands based on characterising the live coverage receipts as technical fees or royalty were rejected, and the common issue was decided in favour of the assessee on identical facts across both assessment years.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment for producing and delivering a finished broadcast feed is not fees for technical services unless technical knowledge or know-how is made available to the recipient, and it is not royalty absent a transfer of rights in copyright, equipment, or a process.

---