Commissioner passed the revision  order with directions to frame a fresh assessment order on ground that Assessing Officer failed to make a disallowance of interest under provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D and therefore order of Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner. On appeal the Court held that Commissioner had not disputed nature of investments being strategic investment made for purpose and in course of business of assessee and had only looked at matter from a different legal view on same set of facts therefore, view taken by Assessing Officer being a possible view could not have been interfered by Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Order of Tribunal is affirmed.  (AY. 2011-12)