Live Telecast Fees Are Not “Royalty”: Delhi HC Dismisses Tax Appeal Against Sri Lanka Cricket

HomeDirect TaxLive Telecast Fees Are Not “Royalty”: Delhi HC Dismisses Tax Appeal Against...

Live Telecast Fees Are Not “Royalty”: Delhi HC Dismisses Tax Appeal Against Sri Lanka Cricket

Direct Tax

Published on

20/01/2026

By Mariya Paliwala

Live Telecast Fees Are Not “Royalty”: Delhi HC Dismisses Tax Appeal Against Sri Lanka Cricket

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC), holding that payments received for live telecast of cricket matches do not constitute “royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that mere live…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Tags
Live Telecast Fees

Live Telecast Fees Are Not “Royalty”: Delhi HC Dismisses Tax Appeal Against Sri Lanka Cricket

Membership Required

Latest articles

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

High Courts Can’t Grant Post-Dismissal Arrest Protection in GST Pre-Arrest Bail Matters; S. 69 Arrest Order Must Be Communicated: Supreme Court

Legality of Gold Confiscation Based on Retracted Statement Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Frames 8 Substantial Questions of Law

GST Bank Attachment Can’t Continue Beyond 1 Year: Delhi High Court

More like this

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

High Courts Can’t Grant Post-Dismissal Arrest Protection in GST Pre-Arrest Bail Matters; S. 69 Arrest Order Must Be Communicated: Supreme Court

Legality of Gold Confiscation Based on Retracted Statement Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Frames 8 Substantial Questions of Law

About us

Company

Categories