ENGLAND AND WALES CRICKET BOARD LIMITED,LONDON V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

SA 97/DEL/2026

AI Insights

The case involves the England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd. (the assessee) appealing against the Income Tax Department's classification of certain income as royalty and the taxation of release fees under Article 18(2) of the India-UK Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee sought a stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2023-24, arguing that the income from live rights and release fees should not be taxed as royalty or under Article 18(2) respectively. The Tribunal considered precedents and the specifics of the agreements involved, leading to a decision to stay the recovery pending further hearings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838668 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2026
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Sri Lanka Cricket, 182 taxmann.com 537
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, India-UK Double Tax Avoidance Agreement
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SINGH SHARMA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Double taxation relief; Application of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “डी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य एिं श्री मनीष अग्रिाल, लेखाकार सिस्य क े समक्ष IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No. 97/Del/2026 (Arising out of IT(IT)A No. 41/Del/2026, A.Y 2023-24) England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd., Lords Cricket Ground, St. Johns Wood, London, United Kingdom NW888QZ PAN: AACCE-9372-Q ...... आवेदक/Applicant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 1(2)(2), New Delhi ..... प्रधििािी/Respondent आवेदक/Applicant by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate, Arpit Goyal, Chartered Accountant & Tanmay Dhakras, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR सुनिाई की धिधि/ Date of hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की धिधि/ Date of pronouncement : 20/02/2026 आिेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This application has been filed by the assessee seeking stay on recovery of outstanding demand for AY 2023-24. 2. Shri Ajay Vohra, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the addition has been made in the hands of the assessee in AY 2023-24 on two issues i.e. (i) Consideration received for live rights as royalty; & Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA No.97/DEL/2026 (ii) Release fees holding it as taxable under Article 18(2) of India-UK Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. The ld. Counsel submits that in so far as the first issue of consideration received for selling of live rights of broadcasting treated as ‘royalty’, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sri Lanka Cricket, 182 taxmann.com 537. The Hon’ble High Court has held that consideration received by nonresident for enabling live telecast of cricket matches does not constitute royalty under Article 12 of the DTAA or u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the present case, the assessee had granted live rights to Colvar Max Entertainment P. Ltd. (Foremerly known as Sony Pictures Newtok India P. Ltd.). The Media Rights Agreement is at page 26 to 98 of the paper book and the said agreement was further extended on similar terms on 29.07.2022, the copy of Agreement is at page 99 to 117 of the paper book. 3.1. On the second issue, the ld. Counsel submits that Article 18(2) of India-UK DTAA relates to income derived by artist and athletes from their personal activities. In the instant case, the amount is received by the assessee for releasing the players to play in other league matches. Hence, the provisions of Article 18 would not apply to the assessee. The ld. Counsel submits that since on both issues the assessee has a strong case on merits, an absolute stay may be granted on recovery of outstanding demand. 4. Per contra, Shri Vikram Singh Sharma representing the department strongly opposed the Stay Application. The ld. DR submits that detail submissions are required to be made on both the issues raised by the assessee in appeal. The issues are not as simple as are being portrait by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, hence, benefit of stay sould not Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA No.97/DEL/2026 be allowed to the assessee. Without prejudice, the ld. DR submitted that if at all stay is to be granted, the same be subject to assessee depositing minimum 20% of the outstanding demand. 5. Both sides heard. After having considered the issues raised by the assessee in appeal, prima facie we are of the view that in so far as first issue is concerned, apparently the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee. As regards the second issue of release fees taxable under Article 18(2) of India- UK DTAA, prima facie Article 18(2) of India-UK DTAA is not attracted. Thus, recovery of outstanding demand for the impugned assessment year is stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. 6. The Registry is directed to list the appeal for hearing on 23.04.2026. Since, the date of hearing of appeal has been announced in the open court in presence of both sides, issuance of separate notice of hearing to the parties is dispensed with. 7. The assessee shall furnish paper book, if any on or before the date of hearing of appeal, with an advance copy to opposite side in accordance with ITAT Rules. 8. The assessee shall not seek adjournment on the date fixed for hearing, without their being any reasonable cause. 9. Before parting with the order, we may hasten to add that any observations made in this order on the issues raised by the assessee in appeal shall have no bearing on adjudication of appeal on merits. Printed from counselvise.com 4 SA No.97/DEL/2026 10. In the result, Stay Application of the assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 20th day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली / Delhi, धिनांक/Dated 20/02/2026 NV/- प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलािी/The Appellant , 2. प्रधििािी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. धिभागीय प्रधिधनधि, आय.अपी.अधि., यदल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 5. गाडड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "