TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business of horse racing and derives income from betting, commission, entry free stall charges etc. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has paid an amount of 41,95,593 on account of royalty paid to other Centers and Rs.14,50,000/- on account of Live telecast Royalty. The assessee was asked whether TDS was deducted on these payments, since as per Assessing Officer these payments were covered by section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In reply the assessee submitted as under:- "A query has been raised regarding the nature of royalty paid and whether TDS has been deducted thereon or not. Royalty is paid to other Race Clu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uct TDS on payments so made by them and therefore by virtue of section 40a(ia) of the Act, I disallow the same." 4. Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) and reiterated its submissions. 5. The Ld AR explained the word copyright before Ld CIT(A) to substantiate its pleadings that live telecast of race is not covered under the word copyright and in view of the above it was argued that in the present case the assessee had no rights at all and there was no agreement for grant of license or transfer of any right and it was just a live telecast by other Race Club which is not repeated as it has no further use nor the assessee gets any rights to re-sell or re-exhibit the live display. It was further submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of royalty as royalty involved use of certain rights which was not there in the present case. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following case laws:- 1. DIT v. Neo Sports Broadcast (P) Ltd. 133 ITD 468 (Mum.) = (2011-TII-185-ITAT-MUM-INTL). 2. Dy. DIT v. Nimbus Centre, I.T.A. No.2270/Mum/2011 dated 23.1.2013. 8. The Ld DR, on the other hand, invited our attention to para 21 of the case law of Neo Sports Broadcast (P) Ltd. and submitted that this case related to a non resident and hence the facts and circumstances are not similar. The Ld DR relied heavily on the order of Assessing Officer and Ld CIT(A). 9. In his rejoinder, the Ld AR submitted that if the assessee was not covered u/s 194J ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h inter alia refers to make a copy of the film including a photograph of any event and forming part thereof and once the event is gathered then the question of making its copies arises. As the meaning of copyright u/s 14 in the context of cinematograph film clearly refers to make a copy of the film and not its original recording obviously the broadcast of live telecast cannot be equated with the copy right of such film. The Hon'ble Bench further observed I para 13, 14,116 & 17 as under:- i) That live telecast of a match or any other event cannot be considered as transfer of copyright as in the case of live telecast of the match no work is said to have come into existence. ii) That in live events or a cinemato....