Back
Delhi ITAT Rules Live Cricket Broadcasting Fees Not Under India-UK DTAA
In a significant ruling for international sports broadcasting and tax law, the , has held that fees received by the for granting live broadcasting rights of cricket matches cannot be treated as taxable in India under the . The tribunal further ruled that a ₹6.26 crore release fee paid by to ECB for allowing English players to participate in the tournament was not taxable in India under , which deals with .
The decision, delivered by Judicial Member Vikas Awasthy and Accountant Member Krinwant Sahay, addresses two core disputes arising from ECB’s income for . The ruling clarifies the distinction between live and rights and the scope of “” under tax treaties, while also limiting the application of athlete income provisions to payments received directly by sports bodies rather than the players themselves.
Live Broadcast: A One-Time Event, Not
The central issue concerned ₹244.78 crore received by ECB from for live broadcasting rights of cricket matches. The had classified this amount as under , which covers payments for the use of, or the right to use, specified intellectual property including , patents, and trademarks. The Revenue argued that the transmission of live matches involved the use of a in the broadcast.
The tribunal firmly rejected this position, observing: “Broadcasting of a Live match is a . Live transmission does not bring to the broadcaster.” It noted that repeat broadcasts and match highlights fall under , for which ECB had already offered the income to tax. The bench relied on earlier rulings that held a live broadcast does not constitute a and, in the circumstances considered, payments for live transmission cannot be treated as .
This reasoning aligns with the fundamental nature of live sports—a real-time, fleeting event that cannot be reproduced identically. The tribunal emphasized that the rights granted for live transmission do not involve the transfer of any enduring intellectual property; rather, they are akin to a service of making the event available as it happens. Accordingly, the live broadcasting receipts were held to be outside the scope of under the DTAA.
Allocation of Rights Fees Upheld
The Revenue also challenged the 95:5 allocation of rights fees between live and adopted by ECB and , seeking a 75:25 split instead. The tribunal rejected this request outright, noting that the allocation had been mutually agreed upon between the parties. Crucially, the Revenue had accepted the same allocation in earlier cases involving and , creating a . The tribunal declined to disturb the commercial arrangement, underscoring the in tax administration.
Release Fee: Not Income of the Athlete
The second major dispute involved a ₹6.26 crore release fee received by ECB from IPL franchises. Under the contractual arrangement, ECB was entitled to 10% of the league fee actually paid by a franchise to an English player. This amount was over and above the league fee paid directly to the player. The Revenue contended that the payment was connected to the players’ participation and performance in the IPL and thus fell within , which taxes income derived by artists and athletes from their personal activities.
The tribunal dismantled this argument, observing that Article 18 specifically refers to income received or accrued to the athlete or player. Since the release fee was paid to ECB—not to the individual cricketers—the provision did not apply. The bench relied on the ’s ruling in (a case concerning the taxability of payments to event organizers for artist performances) to support its conclusion. The ruling draws a clear line: income taxable under must directly benefit the performer; payments to third parties, even if triggered by a player’s participation, remain outside that scope.
Mandatory Interest Levied
While ECB succeeded on the substantive issues, the tribunal dismissed its challenge to interest levied under . The bench held that the levy of interest for delayed filing and advance tax shortfalls is , leaving no discretion to waive it. This part of the appeal was dismissed, reminding taxpayers that procedural compliance remains non-negotiable.
Legal Implications for Sports Broadcasting and Tax Treaty Interpretation
This judgment carries weight for the sports industry, particularly cricket boards and broadcasters operating across jurisdictions. By distinguishing live broadcasts from non-live content, the ITAT reinforces the position that real-time transmission does not create a , thereby avoiding classification as under most tax treaties. The decision aligns with global jurisprudence that treats live events as of intellectual property.
For multinational sports bodies like ECB, the ruling provides clarity on the taxability of fees for player releases. It confirms that such payments, when made to the governing body rather than the player, are not subject to the special provisions for artists and athletes. This could encourage more straightforward structuring of international player participation agreements.
Tax practitioners will note the tribunal’s emphasis on consistency: once a revenue authority accepts an allocation or classification in one case, it cannot arbitrarily change it in a similar subsequent case without cogent reasons. The decision also underscores the importance of contractual documentation, as the mutually agreed allocation between ECB and Sony was given deference.
Conclusion
The Delhi ITAT’s decision is a welcome clarification for international sports and tax law. By holding that live broadcasting fees are not under the India-UK DTAA and that release fees to a sports board are not taxable as athlete income, the tribunal has provided certainty to cricket boards and broadcasters. While the mandatory interest levy remains a caution, the substantive rulings offer a template for structuring cross-border sports transactions. The appeal was partly allowed, marking a balanced outcome that respects both treaty language and commercial realities.
