Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. While computing book profit u/s 115JB, AO reduced amount of profit exempt u/s 80IB(10). Subsequently, CIT noted that while computing book profit for MAT u/s 115JB, assessee had incorrectly reduced deduction u/s. 80IB which was accepted during scrutiny assessment under normal provisions and hence, such order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. By placing reliance on a decision of Karnataka High Court non-jurisdictional High Court, CIT set aside assessment order and directed AO to pass a fresh order.  Tribunal held that   explanation 2(d) u/s. 263 specifically stated that revision was possible only due to judgments of jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court. However, in instant case, decision relied on by CIT was not of jurisdictional High Court. Provision of s. 263 would apply when decision of AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to interests of Revenue.  In a case where two views were possible and AO has taken one view, with which CIT does not agree, it could not be treated as an erroneous order, prejudicial to interests of Revenue.  (AY. 2011-12)