Court rules franchise fee and advertisement expenses as revenue expenditures, not capital; emphasizes ongoing business operations.

The court determined that the franchise fee and advertisement expenses were revenue expenditures, not capital expenditures. The franchise fee paid based on turnover did not confer ownership of the trademark or provide an enduring benefit. Similarly, the advertisement expenses were considered periodic costs to maintain customer attraction and not capital outlays for a lasting advantage. The court relied on established tests to differentiate between capital and revenue expenditure, emphasizing the absence of new assets and the expenses' role in facilitating ongoing business operations. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authorities' decisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether entire franchise fee was revenue expenditure or capital expenditureRs.
2. Whether entire expenditure on advertisement was revenue expenditure or capital expenditureRs.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the classification of the franchise fee as either revenue or capital expenditure. The court differentiated the present case from the Madras High Court decision cited by the Assessing Officer. The respondent-assessee paid a franchise fee based on turnover, not a lump sum, for using the trademark "Dominos." The court emphasized that the respondent did not acquire ownership of the trademark, and the agreement could be terminated, indicating no enduring benefit. Referring to the J.K. Synthetics case, the court highlighted tests to determine capital vs. revenue expenditure, focusing on asset acquisition, business advantage, and enduring benefit. The court concluded that no new asset emerged, and the expenditure enabled profitable business operation without creating an enduring asset.

2. The second issue concerns the treatment of advertisement expenses as revenue or capital expenditure. The court cited the Salora International case, where it was held that advertising expenses are typically revenue in nature, especially in competitive markets with short customer memory. The court emphasized that such expenses are periodic, aimed at maintaining customer attraction, and not a one-time capital outlay. The court rejected the idea that the expenses were for setting up a profit-earning mechanism, as they were part of the ongoing business process. The decision in the Monto Motors case further supported the view that advertisement expenses are generally revenue in nature, aimed at increasing sales without creating a lasting advantage.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower authorities' decisions on both issues, emphasizing the nature of the expenses, lack of enduring benefits, and the ongoing business nature of the expenditures.

---