JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - These three writ applications by three limited companies whose profits and gains are derived from their industrial undertakings claim deduction u/s 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from such profits and gains, of a percentage on the capital employed in the said industrial undertakings. 2. As common questions are involved, the writ applications were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Petitioner in OJC No. 1031 of 1980 got the deduction for the assessment year 1976-77 granted by the Income Tax Officer to the extent of Rs. 7,35,114 u/s 80J. However, after amendment of Section 80J by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 which had retrospective operation, the Commissioner of Income Tax issued notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act to show cause why the order of assessment should not be modified, cancelled or set aside. Petitioner has assailed the said notice. 4. In OJC No. 2356 of 1981 validity of the retrospective amendment of Section 80J of the Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 has been assailed with a prayer for directions to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 to interpret Section 80J in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the Income Tax Officer to dispose of the assessments in respect of the four assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 by interpreting Section 80J in its favour. 5. In OJC No. 2855 of 1981, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the assessments in respect of the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. 6. At the time when the writ applications were filed in the years 1980 and 1981, different High Courts had interpreted Section 80J in favour of the assessees. However, the law has been settled by the Supreme Court in the decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others overruling the decisions of the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras, Allahabad, Punjab & Haryana and Andhra Pradesh. The dispute was whether the term "capital employed" would include short-term borrowings or long-term borrowings for an industrial undertaking. Union of India (UOI) and Others overruling the decisions of the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras, Allahabad, Punjab & Haryana and Andhra Pradesh. The dispute was whether the term "capital employed" would include short-term borrowings or long-term borrowings for an industrial undertaking. Considering the retrospective amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980, it has been held by the majority that the assessees would get relief only with reference to their own capital and not with reference to any moneys which might have been borrowed by them for employment in the undertaking. 7. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief us prayed for in the writ applications. The other questions relating to non-maintainability of the writ applications raised by the Revenue are not required to be considered which would be of academic interest only. 8. In the result, the writ applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. H.L. Agrawal, C.J. 9. I agree.