Live Cricket Telecast Fees Are Not Royalty: Delhi High Court Dismisses Tax Appeal Against Sri Lanka Cricket:

Live Cricket Telecast Fees Are Not Royalty: Delhi High Court Dismisses Tax Appeal Against Sri Lanka Cricket

Payment for live feed of cricket matches does not involve copyright or enduring rights; no royalty income arises

HC: Live Cricket Telecast Fees Are Not Royalty Under Income Tax Law

authorMeetu KumaridateJan 20, 2026
Last update on Jan 20, 2026
Live Cricket Telecast Fees Are Not Royalty: Delhi High Court Dismisses Tax Appeal Against Sri Lanka Cricket The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A challenging the ITAT’s order holding that payments made to Sri Lanka Cricket for live telecast of cricket matches were not taxable in India as “royalty”. The Department argued that the consideration paid for live feed amounted to royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act.
NFRA Cracks Down on Audit File Lapses: 60-Day Completion Rule, 7-Day Submission Deadline, Many More
Sri Lanka Cricket contended that the issue was squarely covered by earlier Delhi High Court judgments in CIT v. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and CIT v. Fox Network Group Singapore Pte. Ltd., where it was held that live telecasts do not constitute transfer of copyright or any similar right. Issue Before Court: Whether consideration paid for live telecast of cricket matches constitutes “royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. HC's Judgment: The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that payments made for live telecasts of cricket matches cannot be treated as royalty. The Court reiterated that a live telecast does not qualify as a “work” under the Copyright Act and therefore does not involve transfer of copyright.
NFRA Cracks Down on Audit File Lapses: 60-Day Completion Rule, 7-Day Submission Deadline, Many More
The Court further held that royalty presupposes enduring rights or continuing benefits, such as the right to record, preserve, or re-telecast content, which were absent in the present case. Since the rights were confined only to live feed for specific matches within a limited period, the consideration paid could not be characterised as royalty. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…