TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 9(i)(vi) of the Act as well as Article 13 of the DTAA. 3.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. DRP / Ld. AO, erred in not appreciating that the issue under consideration has authoritatively been decided by the ITAT, Mumbai in favour of the appellant in AY 2009-10 to AY 2012-13, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 observing that the production work undertaken is a live coverage of event and hence the income earned there from would not qualify as "Royalty" under the provisions of the Act and the DTAA. 3.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law. The Ld. DRP / Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Appellant's case for AY 2010-11 has not admitted the substantial question of law with respect to treating the income as "Royalty" under the provisions of the Act and the DTAA. 3.4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law. The Ld. DRP / Ld. AO erred in alleging that the appellant received consideration for allowing it to use copyright in its scientific work, being the feed, which would qualify as "Royalty" both under the provisions of the Act and the India- UK DTAA. 4. A plain readi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall become the property of the BCCI. We notice that the revenue has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has kept the ownership rights over the program content. The Ld DRP has noticed that the BCCI is required to supply certain equipments and hence the Ld DRP has held as under:- "...the assessee would be using equipments to carry out this work which is nothing but equipment royalty as per the Act as well as the DTAA." We are unable to understand the rationale behind this observation. If the assessee was using the equipments belonging to BCCI and if that activity is examined in isolation, then the assessee should be paying money to BCCI for using the equipments. In the instant case, the assessee has received the money for producing live coverage of cricket matches. The equipments required for the said purpose may be brought by the assessee itself or it may be provided by the BCCI. Under commercial terms, if the assessee was required to bring the equipments, then the consideration payable for the production of live coverage of cricket matches should go up. Thus, in our view, it was a simple case of commercial agreement entered between the parties with r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the word 'broadcast' in Section 2(dd) (of the Copyright Act). That apart we note that Section 13 does not contemplate broadcast as a work in which 'copyright' subsists as the said Section contemplates 'copyright' to subsist in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work, cinematograph films and sound recording. Similar is the provision of Section 14 of the Copyright Act which stipulates the exclusive right to do certain acts. A reading of Section 14 would reveal that 'copyright' means exclusive right to reproduce, issue copies, translate, adapt etc., of a work which is already existing... 18. In view of the aforesaid position of law which brought out a distinction between a copyright and broadcast right, sufficie would it be to state that the broadcast or the live coverage does not have a 'copyright'. The aforesaid would meet the submission of Mr. Sawney that the word 'Copyright' would encompass all categories of work including musical, dramatic, etc. and also his submission that the Copyright acknowledges the broadcast right as a right as a right similar to 'copyright'. In view of the conclusion of this Court in ESPN Star Sports case (supra), such a submission needs to be reje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in following back-ground. RespondentAssessee was engaged by Board of Control of Cricket in India (for short "BCCI") for preparing live feed of cricket matches which would be telecast on TV channels. The Revenue's first contention was that, the payment received by the Assessee from the BCCI for such work, was in the nature of "Fee for technical services". Revenue's alternate contention was that, following first contention, the payment to the Assessee was in the nature of royalty. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") rejected both the contentions. The second question argued before us by the Revenue relates to the Tribunal's decision to reject the alternate contention of the Revenue. 6 Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties on this issue and having perused the documents on record, the Tribunal referred to royalty as defined under IndiaUK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and held that the payment received by the Assessee, cannot be termed as 'royalty'. This definition reads as under:- "(a) Payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO has erred in characterising the services provided by the appellant as "Fee for Technical Services" (FTS) under the provisions of section 9(i)(vii) of the Act as well as Article 13 of DTAA. 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. DRP / Ld. AO, erred in not appreciating that the issue under consideration has authoritatively been decided by the ITAT, Mumbai in favour of the appellant in AY 2009-10 to AY 2012-13, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16. 4.3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/ Ld. AO has erred in ignoring that the activity of live audio and video coverage of events constitute production of programmes and falls under the definition of "work" provided under Explanation (iv) to Section 194C of the Act and hence the same would not qualify as "service"' and consequently will not be taxable as "1(TS" under Section 9(i)(vii) of the Act. 4.4. In the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/ Ld. AO has grossly erred in concluding that the services rendered by the appellant do not make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc. and in doing so, has clearly ignored th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The assessee's job is restricted to production of live coverage and the job of broadcasting the same is undertaken by the BCCI. The BCCI, in turn, has given license to certain companies (called licensees) and they have undertaken the job of broadcasting the live coverage of cricket matches on behalf of BCCI. Since the assessee is supplying the live coverage in the form of digitalized signals, it has to ensure that the broad casters also do have the compatible technology and equipments so that the live coverage can be broadcast without compromising the quality. Thus, in our view, the technical aspects are specified in the agreement in order to ensure that the program content is broadcast at the same quality in which it was produced. The same was sought to be achieved by synchronizing the quality of technical equipments between the assessee and the broadcasters (licensees). Such kind of synchronization of technology would ensure seamless function and complete coordination between the assessee and the broadcasters. Thus, there is a difference between the technology involved in the production of live coverage feed of cricket matches and the technology required to broadcast the same in ....