ADIT (IT) v. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.

133 ITD 468Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#19007 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing ADIT (IT) v. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.

Lex Sportel Vision Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Int. Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2397/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…1179/Delhi/2022) (ITAT Delhi) iv. ESS (formerly known as ESPN Star Sports) vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7903/DEL/2018) (ITAT Delhi) 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 t…

Fox Networks Group Singapre Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT Circle (International Taxation)- 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 8683/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271Section 9

…3. Live transmission rights are not covered under the definition of royalty as per the India Singapore DTAA also; and 4. There are judicial decisions such as in the case of Delhi Race Club (ITA Nos. 6 & 241 of 2014, Del. HC) and Neo Sports broadcast Pvt. Ltd. 133 ITD 468 (ITAT, Mumbai). I.T.A. No. 8683/DEL/2019 7 5. The proposed Direct Tax Code in its definition of royalty had expressly covered 'Live coverage of any event' within the definition of royalty, therefore, it is presumed that the definition in the existing Act excludes live transmission.” 4. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the contentions r…

Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2007-08,

ITA 1432/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Acit-10(3)(1), Vs. M/S Neo Sports Broadcast R. No. 212, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Nimbus Centre, Mumbai - 400020 Oberoi Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aaccn2854Q

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…ty, hence, not chargeable to tax in India and therefore, no withholding tax is payable in India, against which the department has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. The ITAT’s order in the appellant’s own case for AY 2008-09 dated 09/11/2011 reported in 133 ITD 468(Mum) is placed on page 1109-1125 of the compilation wherein it has held that payment made towards consideration for live feed of cricket matches cannot be held as royalty within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and therefore, no withholding tax is payable in India thereby confirming the CIT appeal order. In view of the foregoing, the ob…

Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2007-08,

ITA 1430/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Acit-10(3)(1), Vs. M/S Neo Sports Broadcast R. No. 212, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Nimbus Centre, Mumbai - 400020 Oberoi Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aaccn2854Q

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…ty, hence, not chargeable to tax in India and therefore, no withholding tax is payable in India, against which the department has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. The ITAT’s order in the appellant’s own case for AY 2008-09 dated 09/11/2011 reported in 133 ITD 468(Mum) is placed on page 1109-1125 of the compilation wherein it has held that payment made towards consideration for live feed of cricket matches cannot be held as royalty within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and therefore, no withholding tax is payable in India thereby confirming the CIT appeal order. In view of the foregoing, the ob…

ADIT (IT) v. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (133 ITD 468) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax