ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. LEX SPORTEL VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7775/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Lex Sportel Vision P. Ltd., Income Tax, R No. 316A, CR B-583 Basement, Chittranjan Building, IP Estate New Park, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi 110002 110019 PAN: AACCL7867K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Tanray Bhatnagar & S.R Shukla Advocates Department by Ms. Amisha S Gupta, CIT-DR Date of hearing 27.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081109317(1), dated 24.09.2025 involving proceedings under section.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. This Revenue appeal raises the following substantive grounds:

ITA No.7775/Del/2025

“1. Whether in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating foreign remittances not chargeable to tax as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment made for "Live Rights" to have not been made for a bouquet of rights? 3. Whether in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the payments in dispute are not made for the use of any "process" as defined u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act and can't be charged to tax as "Royalty" in the hands of the overseas rights holders? 4. Whether in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) of the Act are not applicable to the payments made under the head 'Live Rights"?” 3. Suffice to say, it transpires during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer has framed his assessment in the assessee’s case on 27.04.2021 inter alia invoking section 40(a)(i) disallowance for the reason that it had failed to deduct TDS on various payments made to non-residents involving the corresponding “live rights” which allegedly amounted to royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act. He thus invoked section 40(a)(i) of the Act to disallow the assessee’s claim of Rs.32,53,98,959/-, which stands reversed in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion; reading as under:- “5.2.4 During the course of present appellate proceedings the appellant contended the conclusion drawn by the A.O. stating that the payments are neither for satellite services, as such, nor are made to the satellite owners/satellite service providers hence, the A.O. has erred in defining the scope of the term ‘process’ to conclude that the payments in question made by 2 | P a g e

ITA No.7775/Del/2025 the appellant are in the nature of “royalty”. Further vide its supplementary submission dated 08.01.2024, the appellant has submitted that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi ("ITAT") vide its order dated 26.12.2023 in ITA No. 2397/Del/2023 for the A.Y. 2018-19 [in the case of the appellant Vs. ITO, Ward, Intl. Taxation-2(2)(1), New Delhi] has decided the issue in favour of the appellant holding that the payments under the head ‘Live Rights’ are not made for use of any “process” as defined u/s 9 (1)(vi) of the Act and can’t be charged to tax as “Royalty” in the hands of the overseas rights holders supplementary submission dated 08.01.2024 of the appellant is reproduced as under:

3 | P a g e

ITA No.7775/Del/2025

4 | P a g e

ITA No.7775/Del/2025

5 | P a g e

ITA No.7775/Del/2025

6 | P a g e

ITA No.7775/Del/2025

7 | P a g e

ITA No.7775/Del/2025

5.2.5 Relevant portion of the decision dated 26.12.2023 of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi ("ITAT") in ITA No. 2397/Del/2023 for the A.Y. 2018-19 [in the case of the appellant Vs. ITO, Ward, Intl. Taxation- 2(2)(1), New Delhi] is reproduced as under: “12. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The question before us is as to, whether the right to broadcast "Live events" is not "copyright" and payment made thereto is "Royalty" under section 9(1)(vi) or not? 14. After detailed examination of the following judgments namely, i. CIT vs. Delhi Race Club [2014] 51 taxmann.com 550 (Hon'ble Delhi HC)(2020) 121 taxmann.com 330 (ITAT Delhi) ii. Fox Network Group Singapore Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(IT) iii. Cricket Australia VS. ACIT(IT) (ITA No. 1179/Delhi/2022) (ITAT Delhi) iv. ESS (formerly known as ESPN Star Sports) vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7903/DEL/2018) (ITAT Delhi) 8 | P a g e

ITA No.7775/Del/2025 v. ESPN Star Sports vs. Global Broadcast News Ltd. 2008 (38) PTC 477 (ITA T Delhi) vi. ADIT (IT) vs. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 133 ITD 468 (ITAT Mumbai) vii. DDIT(IT) vs. Nimbus Communications Ltd (2013) 20 ITR(T) 754 (ITAT Mumbai), we hold that broadcasting "Live events" does not amount to a work in which copyright subsists, meaning thereby right to broadcast live events i.e., "Live Rights", is not "copyright" and therefore any payment made thereto can't be said to be chargeable to tax as royalty under section 9(1)(vi). Further the courts have held that when the agreements clearly bifurcate the consideration paid towards Live and "Non-Live Rights", the Department can't deem the payment made for "Live Rights" to have been made for a bouquet of rights. 15. The other issue examined during the hearing was, whether the payments were made for the use of "process" or not? 16. We find that the payments in dispute are made to overseas rights holder. The said payments are neither made to any satellite operators nor for use of any satellite. Thus, the payments in dispute are not made for use of any "process" as defined u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act and can't be charged to tax as "Royalty" in the hands of the overseas rights holders. Accordingly, we hold that the AO while passing the order u/s 201 of the Act has erred in law by treating the remittances to have been made for use of a "Process". 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2023.” 5.2.6 I have gone through the assessment order, grounds of appeal, statement of facts, written submission of the appellant and other materials available on record. Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi ("ITAT") vide its order dated 26.12.2023 in ITA No. 2397/Del/2023 for the A.Y. 2018-19 [in the case of the appellant Vs. ITO, Ward, Intl. 9 | P a g e

ITA No.7775/Del/2025 Taxation2(2)(1), New Delhi] has already decided the issue in favour of the appellant holding that the payments under the head ‘Live Rights’ are not made for use of any “process” as defined u/s 9 (1)(vi) of the Act and can’t be charged to tax as “Royalty” in the hands of the overseas rights holders. Hence, in accordance with the above decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, provisions of section 195 r.w.s. 40(a)(i) of the Act also are not applicable to the payments under the head ‘Live Rights’. Accordingly, addition of 32,53,98,959/-is deleted and grounds No. 1 to 15 including the additional grounds are allowed.”

10 | P a g e

ITA No.7775/Del/2025 we find merit in the assessee’s foregoing contentions supporting the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion reversing the assessment findings treating his “Live Rights” payments as “Royalty” u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The Revenue fails in its instant sole substantive grievance in very terms. 6. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th April, 2026. NV/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

11 | P a g e