https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250403 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. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Aug 2014 06:31:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250403 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250403