We paid foreign umpires and match referees for a cricket tournament and did not withhold. The department has treated us as in default under s.194E. Are umpires within that section?
They are not. The Calcutta High Court held that umpires and match referees are neither sportsmen (including athletes) nor a non-resident sports association or institution, so s.115BBA does not reach their income and the liability to deduct under s.194E never accrued on payments to them. On the other half of the case the assessee lost: the double taxation avoidance agreements relied on did not exclude the operation of s.115BBA or s.194E, so the duty to deduct on payments of prize money and administrative expenses to the foreign teams stood.
Decided by the High Court (Bhaskar Bhattacharya J and Sambuddha Chakrabarti J (High Court at Calcutta, Special Jurisdiction (Income-Tax), Original Side)) on 2011-05-18, reported as I.T.A. No. 121 of 2004; heard on 12 April 2011. It bears on section 194E, section 115BBA, section 194J, section 260A, section 90 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in TDS Defaults, How Tax Law Is Read and Penalty matters.
This is the case to reach for when the department applies s.194E to everyone on the tournament payroll. The Court's reasoning is that s.194E is parasitic on s.115BBA — it bites only where the income is income referred to in s.115BBA — and s.115BBA is drawn by reference to categories of person, not to the fact of being paid for a cricket match. Umpires and referees, said the Court, are at most professionals or technical persons rendering professional or technical services. The Court then made the practical point that the resident-facing equivalent, s.194J, was extended to sports persons, umpires and referees only by Notification No. S.O. 2085(E) dated 21 August 2008, which is after the years in dispute, so on those years there was no withholding hook at all for umpires. Two limits. First, this was a partial win: on the treaty question the Court went with the Revenue, and the whole point of s.194E — a withholding obligation that operates independently of what the treaty finally yields to the payee — was upheld. Second, the section has since been widened: s.115BBA now carries a clause (c) for an entertainer who is not a citizen of India and is a non-resident, and s.194E as it stands names an entertainer expressly, so a payee who is not a sportsman may now be caught as an entertainer on facts where he was not caught in 2011.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee was a committee constituted in connection with the hosting of World Cup cricket matches in India. The International Cricket Council had decided at a special meeting in London on 2 February 1993 that there should be thirty-seven matches in the competition, and after three countries were selected as co-hosts each was required to bear the expenses incurred for the matches held on its soil. To host the Indian leg, the Board of Control for Cricket in India appointed the assessee, which disbursed administrative expenses of teams and payments to umpires and match referees. On 6 May 1997 the Income-tax Officer passed two orders. The matter went through the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal more than once, the Tribunal reiterating its view by order dated 5 November 2003, and the assessee appealed to the High Court under s.260A, a Division Bench having framed questions of law at admission. The assessee was represented by Mr. R.N. Bajoria and Mr. J.P. Khaitan; the Revenue by Md. Nizamuddin.
The appeal was allowed in part. Payments made to umpires and match referees do not come within s.115BBA, because umpires and match referees are neither sportsmen (including athletes) nor a non-resident sports association or institution; although those payments were income which had accrued in India, they were not taxable under s.115BBA and the liability to deduct under s.194E never accrued on them. The double taxation avoidance agreements with Australia, Kenya, New Zealand, Holland and Sri Lanka did not absolve the appellant of its duty to deduct at source under s.194E in respect of payments of prize money and administrative expenses to the foreign teams. The order under appeal was modified to that extent and the Assessing Officer was directed to modify the order of penalty by excluding the amounts paid to umpires and match referees. The first, second, fifth and sixth questions were answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue, and the third in the negative and against the Revenue; the fourth became redundant. There was no order as to costs, and a prayer for stay made after judgment was refused.
The Court read s.194E as operating on income referred to in s.115BBA, and s.115BBA as explicitly confined to a non-resident sportsman including an athlete who is not a citizen of India and to a non-resident sports association or institution. Umpires and match referees fit neither description; at most they are professionals or technical persons rendering professional or technical services as umpire or match referee, for which there is no scope of deducting anything under s.194E. The Court noted that the resident-facing provision, s.194J, casts a duty to deduct on payments to a resident for professional or technical services, and that Notification No. S.O. 2085(E) dated 21 August 2008 issued under Explanation (a) to s.194J brought sports persons, umpires and referees within that section with effect from the date of publication — so after 21 August 2008 resident umpires and referees come within s.194J, but that did not help the Revenue for the earlier period in issue, and in any event s.194J reaches residents while s.194E reaches non-residents. On the treaty question the Court went through the six agreements placed before it and found no provision indicating that income derived by a resident of a Contracting State as an entertainer or as an athlete from his personal activities exercised in the other Contracting State should not be taxed in that other State; the provisions were the reverse. It applied Azadi Bachao Andolan for the proposition that the purpose of a double taxation avoidance convention is to make the benefits it confers available even where inconsistent with the Act, and concluded that since none of the six agreements excluded s.115BBA or s.194E, their existence did not do away with the appellant's duty to deduct.
In our opinion, the Umpires and the Match Referee can, at the most, be described as professionals or technical persons who render their professional or technical services as Umpire or Match Referee.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThey are not. The Calcutta High Court held that umpires and match referees are neither sportsmen (including athletes) nor a non-resident sports association or institution, so s.115BBA does not reach their income and the liability to deduct under s.194E never accrued on payments to them. On the other half of the case the assessee lost: the double taxation avoidance agreements relied on did not exclude the operation of s.115BBA or s.194E, so the duty to deduct on payments of prize money and administrative expenses to the foreign teams stood. This was decided by the High Court (Bhaskar Bhattacharya J and Sambuddha Chakrabarti J (High Court at Calcutta, Special Jurisdiction (Income-Tax), Original Side)) and bears on section 194E, section 115BBA, section 194J, section 260A, section 90 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as I.T.A. No. 121 of 2004; heard on 12 April 2011. This is the case to reach for when the department applies s.194E to everyone on the tournament payroll. The Court's reasoning is that s.194E is parasitic on s.115BBA — it bites only where the income is income referred to in s.115BBA — and s.115BBA is drawn by reference to categories of person, not to the fact of being paid for a cricket match. Umpires and referees, said the Court, are at most professionals or technical persons rendering professional or technical services. The Court then made the practical point that the resident-facing equivalent, s.194J, was extended to sports persons, umpires and referees only by Notification No. S.O. 2085(E) dated 21 August 2008, which is after the years in dispute, so on those years there was no withholding hook at all for umpires. Two limits. First, this was a partial win: on the treaty question the Court went with the Revenue, and the whole point of s.194E — a withholding obligation that operates independently of what the treaty finally yields to the payee — was upheld. Second, the section has since been widened: s.115BBA now carries a clause (c) for an entertainer who is not a citizen of India and is a non-resident, and s.194E as it stands names an entertainer expressly, so a payee who is not a sportsman may now be caught as an entertainer on facts where he was not caught in 2011. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Classify each payee against the categories in s.115BBA before conceding a s.194E default: a sportsman including an athlete who is not a citizen of India and is a non-resident; a non-resident sports association or institution; and, since the Finance Act, 2012 amendments, an entertainer who is not a citizen of India and is a non-resident.
The assessee was a committee constituted in connection with the hosting of World Cup cricket matches in India. The International Cricket Council had decided at a special meeting in London on 2 February 1993 that there should be thirty-seven matches in the competition, and after three countries were selected as co-hosts each was required to bear the expenses incurred for the matches held on its soil. To host the Indian leg, the Board of Control for Cricket in India appointed the assessee, which disbursed administrative expenses of teams and payments to umpires and match referees. On 6 May 1997 the Income-tax Officer passed two orders. The matter went through the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal more than once, the Tribunal reiterating its view by order dated 5 November 2003, and the assessee appealed to the High Court under s.260A, a Division Bench having framed questions of law at admission. The assessee was represented by Mr. R.N. Bajoria and Mr. J.P. Khaitan; the Revenue by Md. Nizamuddin. The matter was decided on 2011-05-18 by the High Court (Bhaskar Bhattacharya J and Sambuddha Chakrabarti J (High Court at Calcutta, Special Jurisdiction (Income-Tax), Original Side)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was allowed in part. Payments made to umpires and match referees do not come within s.115BBA, because umpires and match referees are neither sportsmen (including athletes) nor a non-resident sports association or institution; although those payments were income which had accrued in India, they were not taxable under s.115BBA and the liability to deduct under s.194E never accrued on them. The double taxation avoidance agreements with Australia, Kenya, New Zealand, Holland and Sri Lanka did not absolve the appellant of its duty to deduct at source under s.194E in respect of payments of prize money and administrative expenses to the foreign teams. The order under appeal was modified to that extent and the Assessing Officer was directed to modify the order of penalty by excluding the amounts paid to umpires and match referees. The first, second, fifth and sixth questions were answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue, and the third in the negative and against the Revenue; the fourth became redundant. There was no order as to costs, and a prayer for stay made after judgment was refused.
The Court read s.194E as operating on income referred to in s.115BBA, and s.115BBA as explicitly confined to a non-resident sportsman including an athlete who is not a citizen of India and to a non-resident sports association or institution. Umpires and match referees fit neither description; at most they are professionals or technical persons rendering professional or technical services as umpire or match referee, for which there is no scope of deducting anything under s.194E. The Court noted that the resident-facing provision, s.194J, casts a duty to deduct on payments to a resident for professional or technical services, and that Notification No. S.O. 2085(E) dated 21 August 2008 issued under Explanation (a) to s.194J brought sports persons, umpires and referees within that section with effect from the date of publication — so after 21 August 2008 resident umpires and referees come within s.194J, but that did not help the Revenue for the earlier period in issue, and in any event s.194J reaches residents while s.194E reaches non-residents. On the treaty question the Court went through the six agreements placed before it and found no provision indicating that income derived by a resident of a Contracting State as an entertainer or as an athlete from his personal activities exercised in the other Contracting State should not be taxed in that other State; the provisions were the reverse. It applied Azadi Bachao Andolan for the proposition that the purpose of a double taxation avoidance convention is to make the benefits it confers available even where inconsistent with the Act, and concluded that since none of the six agreements excluded s.115BBA or s.194E, their existence did not do away with the appellant's duty to deduct. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In our opinion, the Umpires and the Match Referee can, at the most, be described as professionals or technical persons who render their professional or technical services as Umpire or Match Referee." The decision followed or applied Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 327 ITR 706 (SC) — applied on the operation of a double taxation avoidance convention; GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v. CIT — referred to in the Court's treatment of the appellant's contention.
It was decided by the High Court on 2011-05-18 and is reported as I.T.A. No. 121 of 2004; heard on 12 April 2011. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 194E, section 115BBA, section 194J, section 260A, section 90, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. The appeal was allowed in part. Payments made to umpires and match referees do not come within s.115BBA, because umpires and match referees are neither sportsmen (including athletes) nor a non-resident sports association or institution; although those payments were income which had accrued in India, they were not taxable under s.115BBA and the liability to deduct under s.194E never accrued on them. The double taxation avoidance agreements with Australia, Kenya, New Zealand, Holland and Sri Lanka did not absolve the appellant of its duty to deduct at source under s.194E in respect of payments of prize money and administrative expenses to the foreign teams. The order under appeal was modified to that extent and the Assessing Officer was directed to modify the order of penalty by excluding the amounts paid to umpires and match referees. The first, second, fifth and sixth questions were answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue, and the third in the negative and against the Revenue; the fourth became redundant. There was no order as to costs, and a prayer for stay made after judgment was refused. It arises in TDS Defaults, How Tax Law Is Read and Penalty matters, on section 194E, section 115BBA, section 194J, section 260A, section 90 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Bhaskar Bhattacharya J and Sambuddha Chakrabarti J (High Court at Calcutta, Special Jurisdiction (Income-Tax), Original Side). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. For umpires, match referees, technical officials and support staff, run this judgment: they fall outside all of those categories, and s.194E therefore imposes no duty at all — not a reduced duty. Check the year against Notification No. S.O. 2085(E) dated 21 August 2008 before assuming s.194J filled the gap; and remember s.194J reaches residents, not the non-residents s.194E is aimed at. Do not run the treaty as an answer to the withholding obligation without reading the specific article. The Court went through six agreements and found nothing excluding s.115BBA or s.194E, and applied Azadi Bachao Andolan on the footing that treaty benefits operate where the treaty provides them, not at large. Where a penalty or a s.201 order covers a mixed body of payments, ask for it to be modified rather than cancelled — that is the relief the Court gave, directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the amounts paid to umpires and match referees.
Still good law. The citator is very thin: one later decision only. In International Merchandising Corporation v ACIT (ITAT Delhi, 25 March 2015) the Bench set the judgment out itself at para 8 - 'The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Indcom Vs. CIT (TDS) (2011) 11 Taxmann.com 109 (Cal) held as under' - reproduced its construction of s.115BBA, including that 'prize money is payable also to a losing team, although, at a lesser rate' and that administrative expenses form part of the prize money package, and applied that construction to hold payments to the ATP liable to deduction under s.194E, concluding 'Accordingly the disallowance so made by the AO is found to be in order'. Read the limit carefully: what was applied is the judgment's reasoning on what falls within s.115BBA for a non-resident sports association, not the holding a practitioner is most likely to want - that umpires and match referees are neither sportsmen nor a non-resident sports association or institution, so s.115BBA does not reach them. That holding has not been taken up by any later court. Nothing overruling, doubting or confining the judgment was found. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
IMPORTANT ON LOCATORS: no paragraph number is cited in this entry, and that is deliberate. Some reproductions of this judgment present an inventory of forty-five numbered paragraphs, in which the lettered sub-clauses a) to s) of the Court's own third paragraph — the narrative of facts — have been renumbered as paragraphs 4 to 22. The judgment's own text shows the operative part running as continuous prose with no paragraph numbers at all. Any paragraph locator for this judgment is therefore unsafe, and the quotation carried here is located by phrase and by position instead. The judgment's disposal is a partial allowance and must not be reported as a win at large: the first, second, fifth and sixth questions were answered in favour of the Revenue, the third against it, and the fourth became redundant. The questions of law themselves have not been read, so this entry does not state what each one was. The Court's own text contains an evident slip in its penultimate sentence on the point, referring to 'Section 195E or even Section 195J' where the discussion throughout is of ss.194E and 194J; that slip is in the original and is not reproduced in anything stated above as the holding. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed in part. Payments made to umpires and match referees do not come within s.115BBA, because umpires and match referees are neither sportsmen (including athletes) nor a non-resident sports association or institution; although those payments were income which had accrued in India, they were not taxable under s.115BBA and the liability to deduct under s.194E never accrued on them. The double taxation avoidance agreements with Australia, Kenya, New Zealand, Holland and Sri Lanka did not absolve the appellant of its duty to deduct at source under s.194E in respect of payments of prize money and administrative expenses to the foreign teams. The order under appeal was modified to that extent and the Assessing Officer was directed to modify the order of penalty by excluding the amounts paid to umpires and match referees. The first, second, fifth and sixth questions were answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue, and the third in the negative and against the Revenue; the fourth became redundant. There was no order as to costs, and a prayer for stay made after judgment was refused.
TaxSphere, “Indcom v Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/indcom-v-cit-tds-no-194e-liability-on-payments-to-umpires-and-match-referees/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We are paying a foreign player, a foreign federation and a foreign performer for an event in India. Who is caught by s.194E, at what rate, and does the treaty stop the deduction?
I paid a foreign body from my overseas bank account for an event partly held in India — must I deduct tax at source when the payee is protected by a treaty?
Our Uttarakhand assessments add back the service tax ONGC reimbursed to us. Is there a binding answer in that High Court?
I pay a dairy to process my milk. Do I deduct 2% under 194C or 10% under 194J?
