Annual franchise fees for IPL participation are revenue expenditure; ad hoc hospitality disallowance fails, but family travel costs remain disallowed.

Recurring annual franchise fees paid only for the right to participate in the IPL were treated as revenue expenditure because no permanent or enduring proprietary asset was acquired and the payment was linked to yearly participation. Ad hoc disallowance of hospitality expenses was held unsustainable where no personal element or specific non-business use was established and the claim had been accepted in earlier years. Travelling expenses for accompanying family members of players were disallowed because no contractual obligation or demonstrable business nexus was shown, and the expenditure was not proved to be wholly and exclusively for business.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the annual franchise fees paid to participate in the IPL was capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. (ii) Whether ad hoc disallowance of a part of the hospitality expenses was justified. (iii) Whether travelling expenses incurred for accompanying family members of players were allowable as business expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether the annual franchise fees paid to participate in the IPL was capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The annual fee was payable in instalments for the right to participate and operate the franchise for the relevant year. The proprietary rights continued to vest with the league authority, the assessee did not acquire a permanent commercial asset, and the payment was linked to yearly participation rather than acquisition of an enduring right. The issue was covered by the assessee's own earlier years on identical facts.

Conclusion: The annual franchise fee was revenue expenditure and the disallowance was deleted, in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether ad hoc disallowance of a part of the hospitality expenses was justified.

Analysis: The assessee was a corporate entity and the disallowance was made on an estimated basis without establishing any personal element or any specific non-business expenditure. The issue was also covered by earlier orders in the assessee's own case.

Conclusion: The ad hoc disallowance of hospitality expenses was not sustainable, in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether travelling expenses incurred for accompanying family members of players were allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: No contractual obligation was shown requiring the assessee to bear such travel costs, and no evidence was produced to show a business nexus or that the presence of family members was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The issue had already been decided against the assessee in earlier years.

Conclusion: The travelling expenses for family members of players were not allowable, against the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the allowance of franchise-fee and hospitality expenditure to the assessee, but upheld the disallowance of travelling expenses for players' family members, resulting in dismissal of all appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A recurring annual payment made only for the use of franchise rights, without acquisition of proprietary or enduring rights, is revenue expenditure; however, expenses lacking contractual or demonstrable business nexus remain disallowable.

---