The assessee was appointed official sponsor of International Cricket Committee events, and entered a sponsorship agreement with GCC and WSN. The assessee sought authorisation for remittances to GCC without tax deduction at source, asserting that the payment to GCC was not taxable in India in terms of article 7(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore in the absence of a permanent establishment. The Assessing Officer rejected this and deemed the amounts to be in the nature of “royalty” and directed deduction of tax at source at 24 per cent. and education cess at 2 per cent. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted part relief to the assessee holding that 50 per cent. of the payment was for usage of trademark, trade name, and copyright in the nature of “royalty” and taxable under article 12. On appeal claiming refund of excess tax paid in respect of remittances made to GCC , The Tribunal held that that the assessee had made payment primarily for the right to use and display event marks, etc. The other right to use official status, advertising and promotional rights before and at each event, and right to tickets and corporate hospitality were ancillary rights which the assessee had been allowed to exploit. The assessee had the non-exclusive right to use footage relates to the events or matches which IDI and GCC owned. That the payments made by the assessee to GCC were not in the nature of royalty as defined under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or article 12(3) of the DTAA. That the State could not charge tax more than what was due from its subjects. If any tax had been paid by the assessee to the Government exchequer in the form of tax deducted at source on the payment made in pursuance to the sponsorship agreement, the assessee may claim refund thereof, in accordance with law.