How many judgments cite DIT v. Jyoti Foundation?

210 judgments on BharatTax cite DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (357 ITR 388), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DIT v. Jyoti Foundation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 147, Section 148.

DIT v. Jyoti Foundation

357 ITR 388High Court2013#429 most cited

What is DIT v. Jyoti Foundation authority for?

An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer conducted an inquiry and applied their mind during the original assessment, as Explanation 2 to Section 263 does not permit unending inquiries by the revisional authority.

210

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Jyoti Foundation · Section 263 · revisional powers · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · non-application of mind · AO's inquiry · original assessment · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · Explanation 2 to Section 263 · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 180219 Taxmann 105

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 153C Section 132

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry malabar industrial section 263(1)lack of enquiry revision u/s 263 non application of mind erroneous and prejudicial section 194a section 263 section 26 section 56(2)

Judgments citing DIT v. Jyoti Foundation

M/S Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 M/s. Karnataka State Seeds Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, ‘Beeja Bhavan’, Bellary Road, Bengalurlu-4, Hebbal, Bangalore – 560 024. Bengaluru. PAN: AACCK 1985D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri L. Bharath, CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by th…

M/S. Origami Cellulo Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR-III)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

…econd set of cases, CIT cannot direct the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed is erroneous or not.” 17. The above view is also supported by the following decisions: - DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs R.K. Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 18. Having broadly discussed and set out above the settled judicial principles for usurpation of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, we now proceed to examine whether for the reasons set out in clauses (a) to (g) of the SCN, the Ld.…

M/S Dhara Dealers Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…to consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. 9 I.T.A. No. 523/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Dhara Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 6.4.2. Now we examine the following judgments:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Reve…

Decent Enclave (P) Ltd. (Formerly Known As Drishti Auto Part Accesories (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 39/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…lable at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. 19. Now we examine the principles laid down in the following judgments. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

M/S Kbr Township Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO-4(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 396/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kbr Township Pvt. Ltd……………...................…..……………………………………………….…..Appellant Room No. 4 Martin Burn Building 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabck 0777 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Kolkata.....................................................................………..Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…ents which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. 10.1. Now we examine Now we examine the principles laid down in the following the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) 7 I.T.A. No. 396/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. KBR Township Pvt. Ltd. It It It was held that revisionary power was held that revisionary power was held that revisionary power u/s 263 u/s 263 u/s 263 is conferred on the is conferred on the is…

Shringar Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…he order of assessment. subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue: We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order pa…

Ankit Gupta, Kolkata vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine th We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of I Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower ncome…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…Borad 263 proceeding. In this case , the Pr CIT himself accepted that certificate was obtained from the bank and provided to him. In that case there was no justification for issuance of notice under section 263 of the Act on this count Jyoti Foundation [2013]357 ITR 388 (Delhi) DG Housing Project Ltd Deduction U/s 54F of the The cost of House as on Act for new construction 31.03.2013 was of Rs of house 4157868/- which increased to Rs 43,76,862/-. It was claimed by the appellant that an amount of Rs 218994/- was paid to the Muncipla corporation for sanction of MAP for new house construction The old House cost wa…

Hill Queen Investment Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…nt. We now examine the following ju subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following ju subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue: on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferr…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…cords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue:- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Reve…

M/S Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(5), Ludhiana

ITA 1464/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 263

…O. he could have made the enquiry himself but this exercise had not been done by him, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT may be quashed. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: * Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) * M/s Colors Textiles Limited Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1514/Chd/2017 for the A.Y. 2013-14 dt. 05/12/2018 * Sh. Abhimanyu Gupta Vs. The Pr. CIT in ITA No. 771/Chd/2017 for the A.Y. 2012-13 dt. 09/04/2018 * M/s Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-I in ITA No. 772/Chd/2017 for the A.Y. 2012-13 dt. 13/11/2019. 6.7 It was reitera…

Nextgen Vyapaar, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…rose subsequent to the order of assessment. subsequent to the order of assessment. 10.1. Now we examine the principles laid down in the principles laid down in the following judgements the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/…

M/S Metal Craft Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…s, 341 ITR 537 (Del); ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); iii) CIT vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Del); iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282; v) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del); vi) Director of Income-tax vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del); vii) PCIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del); viii) Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) ix) Shri Abhimanyu Gupta vs. PCIT, ITA No. 771/CHD/2017; x) Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai Trib.); xi) Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Addl. ICT, 108 ITR 407 (Cal); xii) B&A Plantation & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 290 ITR 3…

Enkay Traffin (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

Smt. Usha Devi Modi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S.Godara)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Nitson & Amitsu Private Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Rungta Mines Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1326/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija

Section 263

…have been referred :- i) CIT v. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); ii) CIT v. Nirav Modi (2016) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); iii) CIT v. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del); iv) CIT v. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del); and, vi) Globus Infocom Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 369 ITR 14 (Del) Furthermore, following case laws have been referred :- i) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii) CIT v. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC); iii) CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217 (Bom); and, iv) Spectra Shares & Scrips (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, 354 I…

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shoreline Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 2094/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Prop. M/S Marine Plaza, Dur-Ul- R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Habib, 29, Marine Drive, Bldg., Annex Bldg., M.K. Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B

…ent should have been passed after making inquiries in different manner then it cannot held that the order of the AO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Here, we would like to reproduce relevant portion of the decision of Jyoti Foundation (357 ITR 388) of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which deals with the scope of the revisionary powers of the CIT and same read as under: "Revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the CIT/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Orders which are passed wit…