Licence fee for broadcast/non-broadcasting rights whether royalty. Amendments in domestic law whether they override DTAA?

Facts:

Assessee a renowned non-resident cricketing administrator body of Australia was in receipt of licence fee and rights amounts for broadcasting/non-broadcasting from Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. Revenue's case was that the amended definition of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) would tax these in India. Assessee's plea was that the amendments of the domestic law cannot override the DTAA provisions as per which these were not royalties. DRP passed order against the assessee. On higher appeal -

Held in favour of the assessee that the broadcasting rights/fees were not royalties. They do not involve any process or anything to partake the definition of royalty as per the DTAA. Domestic law amendments cannot override DTAA provisions - is no longer res integra.

Applied :

Fox Network Group Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle 1(3)(1), New Delhi (2020) 121 taxmann.com 330 (Delhi-Trib.) : 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0558 (Del-Trib)

CIT v. Delhi Race Course Club (2014) 51 taxman.com 550 (Delhi) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 0359 (Del-HC) 

Director of Income Tax v. New Skies Satellite BV (2016) 68 taxmann.com 8 (Delhi) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1115 (Del-HC)

ESS (Formerly known as ESPN Star Sports) v. ACIT in [ITA No. 7903/Del/2018, dt. 21-02-2023] : 2023 TaxPub(DT) 1164 (Del-Trib)

Case: Cricket Australia v. ACIT 2023 TaxPub(DT) 5184 (Del-Trib)