Tribunal Decision: Franchisee Expenses Disallowed, Market Development Expenses Allowed as Revenue Expenditure

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on the deletion of disallowance of franchisee expenses, affirming them as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the disallowance of market development expenses, ruling them as revenue in nature and withdrawing the depreciation allowance. The decision highlighted the importance of assessing the nature of expenses and maintaining consistency in tax assessments.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 68,17,444/- made by AO out of franchisee expenses.
2. Confirmation of disallowance of market development expenses of Rs. 1,85,53,715/- as capital expenditure and allowing depreciation @25%.

Issue 1: Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 68,17,444/- Made by AO Out of Franchisee Expenses

The revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 68,17,444/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of total franchise fee expenditure of Rs. 90,89,925/-. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance based on the order of ITAT in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, where it was held that franchise expenses are revenue in nature. The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the issue was covered by the previous decision, which detailed that expenses such as sales promotion, entertainment, gifts to customers, and others were revenue in nature. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal as no contrary decision or change in facts was presented. Thus, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that franchise fees debited under "Market Development Expenses" amounting to Rs. 90,89,925/- is a revenue expenditure. Consequently, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Issue 2: Confirmation of Disallowance of Market Development Expenses of Rs. 1,85,53,715/- as Capital Expenditure and Allowing Depreciation @25%

The assessee appealed against the confirmation of disallowance of market development expenses of Rs. 1,85,53,715/- as capital expenditure, on which depreciation @25% was allowed. The assessee argued that these expenses, paid to CRM International USA and Cyber Strategies Ltd. UK, were for normal marketing services and were not of enduring nature. The assessee contended that similar expenses were allowed in previous years and relied on several judicial precedents to support its claim that such expenses are revenue in nature.

The revenue argued that the exclusive arrangement with CRM International created an advantage of enduring nature, making it an intangible asset. The Tribunal examined the agreement and noted that the services provided were routine marketing and customer support services, which did not create any enduring benefit or intangible asset. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Empire Jute Co Ltd. v. CIT, which held that if the advantage facilitates trading operations without touching the fixed capital, the expenditure is revenue in nature. The Tribunal also considered the rule of consistency, noting that similar expenses were allowed in previous years without disallowance.

The Tribunal concluded that the market development expenses were revenue in nature and reversed the CIT(A)'s finding. Consequently, the depreciation allowance granted by the lower authorities on franchise fees and market development expenditure, considering them as intangible assets, was directed to be withdrawn. Thus, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of disallowance of franchisee expenses and allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of market development expenses, directing the withdrawal of depreciation allowance on these expenses. The judgment emphasized the nature of the expenses and the rule of consistency in tax assessments.

---