Tribunal directs franchise fee as revenue, remands expense disallowances, upholds interest and penalties.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to treat the franchise fee as a revenue expenditure. Various expense disallowances were remanded for fresh examination. The levy of interest and penalty proceedings were upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of total returned income.
2. Deduction of franchise consideration – Capital or revenue expenditure.
3. Nature of annual consideration paid to BCCI.
4. Cost of intangible asset for computing depreciation.
5. Disallowance of airfare and traveling expenses.
6. Disallowance of lodging, boarding, and food and nutrition expenses.
7. Ad hoc additions to the returned income.
8. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D.
9. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acceptance of Total Returned Income:
The assessee contested the non-acceptance of the total returned income. However, the judgment did not provide specific details or a ruling on this issue.

2. Deduction of Franchise Consideration – Capital or Revenue Expenditure:
The assessee paid Rs. 30,03,60,000 as an annual franchise fee to BCCI, which was claimed as a revenue expenditure. The AO treated this as capital expenditure, arguing it provided an enduring benefit. The CIT(A) upheld this view, treating the fee as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. However, the Tribunal, following its own decisions in previous years (AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11), ruled that the franchise fee is a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition and allow the claim of the assessee.

3. Nature of Annual Consideration Paid to BCCI:
The AO considered the annual consideration paid to BCCI as a capital expenditure, treating it as an intangible asset. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decisions, held that the payment facilitated participation in the league and did not create an enduring benefit. Thus, it should be treated as a revenue expenditure.

4. Cost of Intangible Asset for Computing Depreciation:
The assessee’s alternative claim regarding the cost of the intangible asset for depreciation computation was rendered redundant as the Tribunal ruled the franchise fee as a revenue expenditure.

5. Disallowance of Airfare and Traveling Expenses:
The AO made an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 59,80,098 (25% of Rs. 2,39,20,390) for airfare and traveling expenses, arguing they were not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination and verification, following its decision in the assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12.

6. Disallowance of Lodging, Boarding, and Food and Nutrition Expenses:
The AO disallowed 33% of the expenses claimed for lodging, boarding, and food and nutrition for celebrities, amounting to Rs. 77,94,826. The Tribunal found the facts similar to earlier years and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing the AO to verify the expenses' nexus with the business.

7. Ad Hoc Additions to the Returned Income:
The assessee contested the ad hoc additions made to the returned income. The Tribunal restored the issues related to airfare, traveling, lodging, boarding, and food expenses to the AO for fresh verification, following its decisions from earlier years.

8. Levy of Interest Under Sections 234B and 234D:
The Tribunal found the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234D to be consequential and mandatory in nature, dismissing the assessee’s submissions on this ground.

9. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal deemed the challenge to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) as premature and dismissed this ground of appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues restored to the AO for fresh examination and verification. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions, treating the franchise fee as a revenue expenditure and directing the AO to re-examine the disallowances of other expenses. The levy of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings were upheld.

---