https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70317 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal. It determined that the mine development expenditure was revenue in nature, not capital, as it was integral to the ongoing extraction process and did not create an enduring asset. The Tribunal found Section 35E of the IT Act inapplicable, as the expenditure was for commercial production, not prospecting. It also quashed the CIT's revisionary order under Section 263, noting the AO's assessment was not erroneous, as two views were possible, and similar expenses had been previously allowed. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70317 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal. It determined that the mine development expenditure was revenue in nature, not capital, as it was integral to the ongoing extraction process and did not create an enduring asset. The Tribunal found Section 35E of the IT Act inapplicable, as the expenditure was for commercial production, not prospecting. It also quashed the CIT's revisionary order under Section 263, noting the AO's assessment was not erroneous, as two views were possible, and similar expenses had been previously allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70317