1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2960 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10. ...Appellant. Vs. M/s.Geometric Software Solutions Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Ms.Padma Divakar for the Appellant. Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate with Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. February 9, 2010. P.C. : The office objections are overruled and the Registry is directed to register the appeal. 2. The only question which is sought to be canvassed in the appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 is as to whether the ITAT was right in holding that the CIT has no jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The issue before the Assessing Officer related to the computation of a deduction under Section 10A. The CIT issued a notice to show cause, on the basis 2 that the expenditure incurred in foreign currency was not liable to be reduced while computing total turnover. The Tribunal has noted that when the assessment order was passed on 20th March 2006, two decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT,1 and in Patni Telecom (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO,2 22 SOT 26 (Hyd) had been delivered. The view which is taken by the Assessing Officer was said to be consistent with the decision of the Tribunal which held the field on the date when the order of assessment was passed. 3. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Co.Ltd. Vs. CIT,3 and in CIT vs. Max India Ltd.,4 it is now a settled principle of law that the CIT, while exercising powers under Section 263 would not be justified in seeking to revise an assessment which is based on a possible view. We may clarify that nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court to indicate that the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Infosys Technologies and Patni Telecom (supra) had been 1 109 TTJ 631 (Bang) 2 22 SOT 26 (Hyd) 3 243 ITR 83 (SC) 4 295 ITR 282 (SC) 3 overruled when the assessment order was passed or that they were not applicable to the facts of this case. 4. In the circumstances, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessment order was based on a possible view and was consistent with the decisions of the ITAT in the two cases noted earlier. Hence, recourse to the power under Section 263 was not warranted. For these reasons, we do not find any substantial question of law would arises in the appeal. We wish to clarify that in the view which we have taken, it has not become necessary for this Court to interpret the scope of the provisions of Section 10A in the present case. 5. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)