JUDGMENT AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J. 1. IN this application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the provisions of ss. 80-I and 80B, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80-I on the profits from priority industry before deducting therefrom the unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate brought forward from the earlier years ?" 2. THIS reference relates to the assessment for the asst. yr. 1972-73 of the assessee which is a private limited company. The assessee-company claimed before the ITO that the deduction under s. 80-I should be given on the entire income from a priority industry. The ITO, however, set off the unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate brought forward from the immediately preceding assessment year and also deducted the profit under s. 41(2) from the income from priority industry and on the balance income, he allowed the deduction under s. 80-I. The assessee-company was aggrieved and, therefore, went in appeal before the AAC. The AAC, however, agreed with the assessee- company that the deduction under s. 80-I should be allowed on the income from the priority industry including profit under s. 41(2) before allowing the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation or development rebate of the earlier years. The Department was aggrieved by the order of the AAC on this issue and, therefore, came up in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. THE Tribunal held that the AAC was correct in allowing relief under s. 80-I oil the business profits before set-off of the losses of the earlier years or unabsorbed depreciation or development rebate. 4. FROM the asst. yr. 1966-67, a new section, being s. 80E, was inserted in the IT Act, 1961, providing for straight deduction to certain companies in respect of profits and gains from priority industries specified in the then Fifth Schedule to the Act. This was to the extent of 8 per cent of such profits. The provisions of s. 80E remained in force till the asst. yr. 1967-68. Thereafter, for and from the asst. yr. 1968-69, s. 80E was replaced by s. 80-I. For the asst. yr. This was to the extent of 8 per cent of such profits. The provisions of s. 80E remained in force till the asst. yr. 1967-68. Thereafter, for and from the asst. yr. 1968-69, s. 80E was replaced by s. 80-I. For the asst. yr. 1972-73, the rate was, however, reduced from 8 per cent to 5 per cent Sec. 80-I was deleted w.e.f. April 1, 1973. It may be mentioned that the 1961 Act, as originally enacted, did not contain Chapter VI-A. This chapter was first inserted by the Finance Act, 1965, w.e.f. April 1, 1965. Chapter VI-A as substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1967, from April 1, 1968, includes all the provisions of the old Chapter VI-A. It also contains certain general provisions applicable to the whole of the chapter as well as the definition of certain words and expressions occurring in the new chapter. Sec. 80B(5) defines the term "gross total income" which means total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A or under s. 280-O. Sec. 80E substantially reproduces s. 80-I. So also s. 80J. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1978 CTR (SC) 167 : (1978) 115 ITR 777, observed that s. 84 of the Act and s. 15C of the Indian IT Act, 1922, for all material purposes, are in the same terms. It may be mentioned that s. 84 has been substituted by s. 80J w.e.f. April 1, 1968. As indicated earlier, in Chapter VI-A, s. 80B(5) has been introduced defining the words "gross total income". Along with the introduction of "gross total income", s. 33(2) of the Act relating to unabsorbed development rebate was significantly amended w.e.f. April 1, 1968. It may be mentioned that s. 84 has been substituted by s. 80J w.e.f. April 1, 1968. As indicated earlier, in Chapter VI-A, s. 80B(5) has been introduced defining the words "gross total income". Along with the introduction of "gross total income", s. 33(2) of the Act relating to unabsorbed development rebate was significantly amended w.e.f. April 1, 1968. The effect of the amendment made in s. 33(2) from April 1, 1968, was that while under the unamended s. 33(2), the deduction for any year on account of development rebate was limited to the assessee's total income of that year as computed without making the deductions for development rebate and development allowance, under the amended s. 33(2), for and from the assessment year 1968-69, the deduction on account of development rebate is limited to the assessee's total income without making the said deductions and also without making any deduction under Chapter VI-A or any deduction on account of annuity deposit under s. 280-O. Sec. 32(2) makes provision for carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of a particular year. According to that section, where, in the assessment of the assessee, full effect cannot be given to the depreciation allowance in any previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year, or owing to the profits or gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of ss. 72(2) and 73(3), the allowance or part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if there is no such allowance for that previous year, be deemed to be the allowance for that previous year. The effect of these provisions is that the unabsorbed depreciation for a particular year becomes, by legal fiction, part of the depreciation allowance for the succeeding year. The unabsorbed depreciation is carried forward and added to the depreciation for the following year. The total amount of depreciation thus arrived at is deemed to be the depreciation of the following year. [CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. (1966) 59 ITR 555 (SC)]. 5. The unabsorbed depreciation is carried forward and added to the depreciation for the following year. The total amount of depreciation thus arrived at is deemed to be the depreciation of the following year. [CIT vs. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. (1966) 59 ITR 555 (SC)]. 5. THE scheme of the Act is that profits and gains of a priority industry for the purpose of deduction under s. 80-I should be computed after setting off of carried forward losses, depreciation and development rebate. This view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Amul Transmission Line Hardware Pvt. Ltd. (1976) 104 ITR 771. This decision was based on the earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra). THE Supreme Court affirmed the said decision of the Gujarat High Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra). THE judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in 1978 CTR (SC) 50 : (1978) 113 ITR 84 (Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company vs. CIT). This Court also in the case of Oil India Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 137 ITR 156 , following the the decision of the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), held that the assessee was entitled to relief under s. 80E on the profits and gains attributable to the activities of priority industries only after their deduction by set off of unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from the earlier years. In the case of CIT vs. Mcleod and Co. Ltd. (1982) 134 ITR 674 , this Court held that deduction under s. 80M is to be made after setting off of losses under ss. 71 and 72 of the Act. 6. THE setting off of unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate comes under Chapter IV, i.e., computation of "total income", whereas setting off of carried forward losses comes under Chapter VI which is "aggregation of income". THErefore, if carried forward loss has to be set off first before allowing deduction under Chapter VI-A, then it logically follows that deduction of unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate must also be made before allowing any relief under that chapter. How the income of a priority industry or of a new industrial undertaking should be computed for the purpose of relief under s. 15C of the old Act corresponding to ss. How the income of a priority industry or of a new industrial undertaking should be computed for the purpose of relief under s. 15C of the old Act corresponding to ss. 84, 80J, 80E of the 1961 Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases and the Supreme Court held that such income should be computed in accordance with the other provisions of the Act in the manner total income is computed and as such unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate have to be adjusted in arriving at such income. In the case of CIT vs. S. S. Sivan Pillai (1970) 77 ITR 354, the Supreme Court held that even if an industrial undertaking has earned profits out of its commercial activity, if it has no taxable profits, it cannot claim exemption from payment of taxes under s. 15C(1) of the old Act. The Supreme Court held that in computing the profits of any industrial undertaking for any year under s. 15C(2) of the old Act, unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years cannot be ignored as the unabsorbed depreciation of the previous year is deemed depreciation of the subsequent year and there is, therefore, no room for making a distinction between the unabsorbed depreciation of the previous year and the depreciation of the current year. 7. IN the case of CIT vs. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. 1978 CTR (SC) 144 : (1978) 115 ITR 640, the Supreme Court held that (p. 646). "It is clear from the language of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J that the profits or gains of a new industrial undertaking from which deduction of the relevant amount of capital employed during a particular assessment year is allowable under that provision, are the profits or gains includible in the computation of the total income chargeable to tax. Therefore, whatever be the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking computed for the purpose of arriving at the total income chargeable to tax, they would have to be taken to be the profits or gains for applying the provision contained in sub-s. (1) of s. 80J. There are no two modes of computation of the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking contemplated by sub-s. (1) of s. 80J, one for determining the total income chargeable to tax and the other for applying the provision contained in that sub-section. There are no two modes of computation of the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking contemplated by sub-s. (1) of s. 80J, one for determining the total income chargeable to tax and the other for applying the provision contained in that sub-section. The language of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J is clear and explicit and leaves no doubt that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing the deduction provided in that sub-section have to be computed in the same manner in which they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and a deduction has then to be made from such profits or gains, of the relevant amount of capital employed during the assessment year in question. It is impossible to see how, by any process of construction, even by turning and twisting the language of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J, it can be held that for the purpose of allowing the deduction contemplated under that section, the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking must be computed in a manner different from that in which they would be computed in determining the total income chargeable to tax. Sub-s. (1) of s. 80J does not create a legal fiction that for the purpose of applying the provision contained in that sub-section, the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking shall be computed as if the new industrial undertaking were the only business of the assessee right from the date of its establishment or the losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the past assessment years were not set off against the profits from other businesses. If the construction of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J contended for and on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, it would lead to the absurd result that there would be two species of profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking, one for inclusion in the total income chargeable to tax and the other for determining the availability of the deduction under sub-s. (1) of s. 80J. That would be plainly contrary to the express language of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J. That would be plainly contrary to the express language of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J. The proper construction of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J must, therefore, be taken to be that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking must be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act in the same manner as they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and it must follow a fortiorari that if the losses, depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the past assessment years have been fully set off against the profit of the assessee from other businesses or for the matter of that, against the income of the assessee under any other head by reason of ss. 70 and 71 r/w sub-s. (2) of s. 32 and sub-s. (2) of s. 32A, no part of such losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate would be liable to be adjusted over again in computing the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for applying the provision contained in sub-s. (1) of s. 80J. The same mode of computation must prevail also in applying the provision contained in sub-s. (3) of s. 80J, because that sub- section provides for setting off the carried forward amount of deficiency of the past assessment years against 'the profits and gains referred to in sub-s. (1)' of s. 80J, as computed after allowing, inter alia, the deduction admissible under that sub-section and, therefore, if for the purpose of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J, the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking are to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and no part of the losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate for the past assessment years which has been fully set off against the profit from other businesses or income under any other head is liable to be adjusted over again in computing the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking, no such adjustment would equally be permissible in applying the provisions contained in sub-s. (3) of s. 80J." 8. IN the case of Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), it was observed that (p. 789): " Neither depreciation allowance nor development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the past assessment years can be allowed as a deduction in computing the profits or gains for the assessment year in question, except where and to the extent to which, it has not been set off against the total income of the assessee for those assessment years and has remained unabsorbed. This is the plain and undoubted effect of the language used in sub-s. (3) of s. 15C. INdeed, the language is so clear and unambiguous that it is impossible to place any other construction upon it." The Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) took the view that in computing the profits of the assessee for the purpose of the special deduction provided under s. 80E, items of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate carried forward from earlier years will have to be deducted before arriving at the figure that will become exigible to the deduction of 8 per cent contemplated by s. 80E(1). 9. THE Supreme Court held (at p. 94 and 95): "THE assessee attempted to challenge the aforesaid view by raising a couple of contentions. In the first place, before the High Court it was strenuously urged, though not seriously before us, that the expression 'total income' appearing in s. 80E(1) has been used in its commercial sense and since neither the unabsorbed depreciation nor the unabsorbed development rebate has anything to do with commercial profits attributable to the business, the said two items would not be deductible before arriving at the figure that would be exigible to the 8 per cent deduction. It is not possible to accept this contention for more than one reason. First, in sub-s. (1) of s. 80E, the expression 'total income' is followed by the words 'as computed in accordance with the other provisions of this Act' in parenthesis and the mandate of these words clearly negatives the argument that the expression 'total income' has been used in the sense of commercial profits. First, in sub-s. (1) of s. 80E, the expression 'total income' is followed by the words 'as computed in accordance with the other provisions of this Act' in parenthesis and the mandate of these words clearly negatives the argument that the expression 'total income' has been used in the sense of commercial profits. Secondly, the expression 'total income' has been defined in s. 2(45) of the Act as meaning 'the total amount of income referred to in s. 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act' and when this definition has been furnished by the Act itself the expression as appearing in s. 80E(1) must, in the absence of anything in the context suggesting to the contrary, be construed in accordance with such definition. Since the words in the parenthesis occurring in sub-s. (1) lay down the manner in which the total income of the concerned assessee is to be computed, there would be no scope for excluding items like unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate while computing the total income on the basis that the total income spoken of by sub-s. (1) means commercial profits." 10. ALTHOUGH the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), laid down the correct law on the question, some doubt arose because of the subsequent decision of a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 243. Some of the observations made in the said judgment are contrary to the principles laid down in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra). This Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. (1981) 23 CTR (Cal) 180 : (1983) 139 ITR 763 , considered the question whether the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80-I of the IT Act, 1961, on the profits of the priority industry before setting off the unabsorbed development rebate of the priority industry itself. There, this Court, after considering the judgment in the case of Cloth Traders' (supra), as well as the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, held as follows (at p. 790): "Therefore, in our opinion, on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. There, this Court, after considering the judgment in the case of Cloth Traders' (supra), as well as the amendment made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, held as follows (at p. 790): "Therefore, in our opinion, on the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (supra), as to the relevant assessment year with which we are concerned, the assessee was entitled to a deduction of 8 per cent as contemplated by s. 80E(1) without a deduction of the unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate in the priority industry." Some of the observations made in the judgment in Orient Paper Mills Ltd.'s case (supra) are not in conformity with the decision in Cambay Electric's case (supra). The Supreme Court in Cambay Electric's case has held that the profits and gains attributable to priority industry cannot be computed on a commercial basis. It has to be done in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. The deemed income under s. 41(2) of the Act was also regarded as part of the profits of the priority industry. This could not have been done if profits and gains are to be computed in a commercial sense. For, the development rebate allowance is a deductible item of expenditure or cost in the process of computation of commercial profits. The decision in the case of Cloth Traders (supra) was concerned with the interpretation of s. 80M whereas Cambay Electric's case (supra) was concerned with s. 80E. The language used in those two sections are different. Where the provisions of the Act are clear as regards the manner and method of computation of the profits, the concept of commercial profits cannot be incorporated in interpreting the provisions of the Act. The question of computation of income or profits and gains was not in any way involved in Cloth Traders's case (supra). That was directly in issue in Cambay Electric's case (supra). The expression "as computed in accordance with the other provisions of the Act" inserted within parenthesis in s. 80E(1) is now found in s. 80B(5). The question of computation of income or profits and gains was not in any way involved in Cloth Traders's case (supra). That was directly in issue in Cambay Electric's case (supra). The expression "as computed in accordance with the other provisions of the Act" inserted within parenthesis in s. 80E(1) is now found in s. 80B(5). The Madras High Court in CIT vs. Madras Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984) 150 ITR 150, held the definition of "gross total income" contained in s. 80B(5) of the IT Act, 1961, as the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before giving deductions under Chapter VI-A which clearly shows the intention of Parliament that the deduction under Chapter VI-A is contemplated only after the total income is computed after setting off the unabsorbed depreciation as per s. 72. Sec. 72 comes under Chapter VI dealing with aggregation of income. Therefore, s. 72 has to be applied before the total income of an assessee is determined, that is, before the deductions under Chapter VI-A are allowed. It further held that unabsorbed depreciation relating to the past years would have to be adjusted and as after such adjustment, the total income was nil, no question of granting any relief under Chapter VI-A would arise. 11. WHATEVER controversy was there, it is now set at rest by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Limited vs. Union of India (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349 : (1985) 155 ITR 120 (at pp. 137 to 140): "It is, therefore, clear that whatever might have been the interpretation placed on cl. (iv) of sub-s. (1) of s. 99 and s. 85A, the correctness of which is not in issue before us, so far as sub-s. (1) of s. 80M is concerned, the deduction required to be allowed under that provision is liable to be calculated with reference to the amount of dividend computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and forming part of the gross total income and not with reference to the full amount of dividend received by the assessee. This view which we are taking in regard to the construction of sub-s. (1) of s. 80M is also supported by the decision of a Bench of this Court consisting of one of us, Chandrachud C.J. and Tulzapurkar J., in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. This view which we are taking in regard to the construction of sub-s. (1) of s. 80M is also supported by the decision of a Bench of this Court consisting of one of us, Chandrachud C.J. and Tulzapurkar J., in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). This decision was rendered by the Court on April 11, 1978, at least a year before the decision in Cloth Traders' case (supra), but, unfortunately, it appears, it was not brought to the attention of the Court when Cloth Traders' case (supra) was argued, because we have no doubt that if it had been cited, the Court would have certainly made a reference to it in the judgment in Cloth Traders' case (supra). The section which came up for consideration before the Court in Cambay Electric Supply Co.'s case (supra) was undoubtedly a different one, namely, s. 80E, but the reasoning which prevailed with the Court in placing a particular interpretation of sub-s. (1) of s. 80E would equally be applicable to the interpretation of sub-s. (1) of s. 80M ...... The question which arose in Cambay Electric Supply Co.'s case (supra) was whether unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate were liable to be deducted in arriving at the figure of profits and gains exigible to deduction of 8 per cent contemplated in sub-s. (1) of s. 80E. The argument of the assessee was precisely the same as the one advanced in the present case, namely, that the words 'such profits and gains' in the latter part of sub-s. (1) of s. 80E were intended to refer only to the category of profits and gains referred to in the earlier part of that provision, namely, 'profits and gains attributable to the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things specified in the list in the Fifth Schedule' and not to the quantum of the profits and gains included in the total income, so that the profits and gains exigible to the deduction of 8 per cent were the profits and gains attributable to the specified business in their entirety and not the profits and gains as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The assessee contended that, in the circumstances, unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate were not liable to be deducted from the profits and gains attributable to the specified business for arriving at the figure exigible to the deduction of 8 per cent This argument of the assessee was rejected by the Court and the Court held that the profits and gains exigible to the deduction of 8 per cent were profits and gains computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and forming Part of the total income and hence unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate were liable to be excluded from the profits and gains attributable to the specified business in arriving at the figure exigible to the 8 per cent deduction. Tulzapurkar J., speaking on behalf of the Court, analysed the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 80E in the following words (p. 91): 'On reading sub-s. (1), it will become clear that three important steps are required to be taken before the special deduction permissible thereunder is allowed and the net total income exigible to tax determined. Tulzapurkar J., speaking on behalf of the Court, analysed the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 80E in the following words (p. 91): 'On reading sub-s. (1), it will become clear that three important steps are required to be taken before the special deduction permissible thereunder is allowed and the net total income exigible to tax determined. First, compute the total income of the concerned assessee in accordance with the other provisions of the Act, i.e., in accordance with all the provisions except s. 80E; secondly, ascertain what part of the total income so computed represents the profits and gains attributable to the business of the specified industry (here generation and distribution of electricity); and, thirdly, if there be profits and gains so attributable, deduct 8 per cent thereof from such profits and gains and then arrive at the net total income exigible to tax.' The learned judge then proceeded to apply this interpretation of sub-s. (1) of s. 80E to the facts of the case before him and observed (p. 94): 'As indicated earlier, sub-s. 1) contemplates three steps being taken for computing the special deduction permissible thereunder and arriving at the net income exigible to tax and the first two steps read together contain the legislative mandate as to how the total income--of which the profits and gains attributable to the business of the specified industry forms a part of the concerned assessee is to be computed and according to the parenthetical clause, which contains the key words, the same is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act except s. 80E and since in this case it is income from business, the same will have to be computed in accordance with ss. 30 to 43A which would include s. 32(2) (which provides for carry forward of depreciation) and s. 33(2) (which provides for carry forward of development rebate for eight years). 30 to 43A which would include s. 32(2) (which provides for carry forward of depreciation) and s. 33(2) (which provides for carry forward of development rebate for eight years). In other words, in computing the total income of the concerned assessee, items of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate will have to be deducted before arriving at the figure that will become exigible to the deduction of 8 per cent contemplated by s. 80E(1).' It will thus be seen that, according to this decision, the words 'such profits and gains' in the latter part of sub-s. (1) of s. 80E were referable to the quantum of the profits and gains attributable to the specified business included in the total income as referred to in the earlier part of the provision. If this decision lays down the correct interpretation of sub-s. (1) of s. 80E, the same interpretation must also govern the language of sub-s. (1) of s. 80M. Structurally, there is hardly any difference between s. 80E, sub-s. (1), and s. 80M, sub-s. (1), and the reasoning which appealed to the Court in the interpretation of sub-s. (1) of s. 80E must apply equally in the interpretation of sub-s. (1) of s. 80M. We find ourselves wholly in agreement with the view taken by this Court in Cambay Electric Supply Co.'s case (supra) and we must, therefore, dissent from the interpretation placed on sub-s. (1) of s. 80M by the decision in Cloth Traders' case." 12. THE controversy, if there be any, is now set at rest by the decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Private Limited (supra). THE total income of the assessee has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act excepting s. 80E. In computing the total income, the ITO has to take into account the provisions of ss. 32(2) and 33(2) as regards unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate brought forward from earlier years. THE deduction of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate must be made before allowing any relief under Chapter VI-A. THE Tribunal, therefore, fell in error in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80-I on the profits from priority industries before deducting therefrom the unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate brought forward from the earlier years. THE deduction of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate must be made before allowing any relief under Chapter VI-A. THE Tribunal, therefore, fell in error in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80-I on the profits from priority industries before deducting therefrom the unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate brought forward from the earlier years. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. 13. THERE will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.: I agree.