Franchise fees for IPL participation treated as revenue expenditure, not capital, because only user rights were acquired.

Franchise fees paid for the right to participate in the Indian Premier League were treated as revenue expenditure because the franchisee acquired no proprietary interest in the league's underlying business or central rights. The arrangement gave only year-to-year participation and exploitation of franchise rights, with continuation dependent on periodic payment and no permanent or transferable interest. Applying the distinction between acquisition of a capital asset and expenditure for use of a commercial right in business, the payment was characterised as consideration for user of rights rather than acquisition of a capital asset. The assessee's claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the franchise fees paid for the right to participate in the Indian Premier League were revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.

Analysis: The payment was examined in the light of the nature of rights acquired under the franchise agreement. The franchisee did not acquire proprietary rights in the underlying business or central rights of the league; the arrangement was for participation and exploitation of the franchise rights on a year-to-year basis, with continuation dependent on periodic payment and without any permanent or transferable interest. Applying the settled distinction between acquisition of a capital asset and expenditure incurred for the use of a commercial right in the course of business, the payment was held to be for the user of rights rather than for their acquisition as a capital asset.

Conclusion: The franchise fees were revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure; the assessee's claim was allowed.

---