Capital receipt and treaty PE principles: termination compensation was not taxable, no dependent agent PE was proved, and no withholding arose.

Compensation paid to terminate a cricket participation arrangement and a non-compete covenant was treated as a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in India, because the payment was linked to termination of a profit-making apparatus and no relevant operations were carried out in India. No dependent agent permanent establishment was proved under the applicable DTAA, as there was no evidence of habitual authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the foreign associations. As the underlying sum was not taxable in India, no withholding obligation arose under section 195; the alternative reliance on sections 115BBA and 194E was also rejected on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the compensation paid for termination of the cricket participation arrangement and the non-compete covenant was chargeable to tax in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether the overseas cricket associations had a dependent agent permanent establishment in India under the applicable DTAA; and (iii) whether the assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source under section 195.

Issue (i): whether the compensation paid for termination of the cricket participation arrangement and the non-compete covenant was chargeable to tax in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961

Analysis: The payment was made for terminating the existing arrangement under which the foreign associations were required to ensure participation of their teams, and also for the non-compete restriction. No matches of the tournament were played in the relevant year after termination, and no operations of the foreign associations were carried out in India in relation to the compensation. Mere execution of the agreement in India did not determine taxability. The payment was held to be compensation for termination of a profit-making apparatus and, on that footing, a capital receipt.

Conclusion: The compensation was not chargeable to tax in India and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the overseas cricket associations had a dependent agent permanent establishment in India under the applicable DTAA

Analysis: Under Article 5(5), a dependent agent permanent establishment arises only where a person acts on behalf of the enterprise and habitually exercises authority to conclude contracts in its name. The Revenue did not establish that the assessee had such authority or that it habitually exercised it on behalf of the foreign associations. The governing council arrangement did not alter the position, because the tournament and the related contracts were conducted by the assessee on its own behalf. The burden to prove a permanent establishment remained undischarged.

Conclusion: No dependent agent permanent establishment was proved in India and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source under section 195

Analysis: Since the underlying payment was not taxable in India in the hands of the foreign associations, no obligation to deduct tax at source arose. The alternative contention based on section 115BBA and section 194E was also rejected as it was outside the basis of the impugned order and, in any event, the discontinued tournament meant that the payment was not in relation to any game or sport played in India.

Conclusion: The assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195 and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The compensation paid on termination of the arrangements with the foreign cricket associations was held to be non-taxable in India, no permanent establishment was established under the treaty, and the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation for termination of an arrangement is not taxable in India unless it is attributable to operations carried out in India or can be linked to a taxable presence under the treaty; where the Revenue fails to prove a permanent establishment and the underlying receipt is not chargeable, no withholding obligation arises.

---