Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN J. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), for the opinion of this court. "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction under section 80J is available on the gross total income as defined in section 80B(5) (with?) reference to the income of the previous year alone before setting off deductions carried forward from the earlier years? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deductions available under the Income-tax Act are to be allowed according to the list of priority decided by the Appellate Tribunal?" * The assessee is a company and the assessment years involved are 1974-75, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The short question that arises in all the cases is whether the deduction under section 80J of the Act can be allowed even before setting off deductions of the carried forward loss and depreciation of the prior assessment years The Appellate Tribunal found that under the provisions of section 80A(2), the aggregate amount of deductions under Chapter VI-A shall in no case exceed the gross total income and section 80B(5) defined the gross total income as the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before making any deductions under this Chapter or under section 280-O. However, the Appellate Tribunal placing reliance on the speech of the Finance Minister ([1964] 64 ITR(St) 101, 103) held that the deduction under section 80J has to be allowed first even before deducting the carried forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation on the given ground that the embargo under section 80A(2) cannot operate, and if it operates it would defeat the assurance of the Finance Minister given before Parliament. It is this order which is the subject-matter of the tax case reference before usMr. It is this order which is the subject-matter of the tax case reference before usMr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the Department, strongly placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. North Arcot District Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. 1985 (151) ITR 238, 1984 (42) CTR 51, 1984 (19) TAXMAN 240 , 1984 (42) CTR(Mad) 51 and the decision in the case of CIT v. Rockweld Electrodes India Ltd. 1995 (215) ITR 358, 1995 (128) CTR 152, 1995 (128) CTR(Mad) 152(Mad) and contended that the deduction under Chapter VI-A has to be allowed after setting off the business loss of the current year as well as setting off the forward business loss and depreciation of the earlier years Mr. R. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that this court should take into account the intention of Parliament and the earlier decisions of this court in CIT v. Rockweld Electrodes India Ltd. (supra) did not take into account the intention of Parliament while construing the provisions of section 80B(5) of the Act We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties Section 80B(5) of the Act defines gross total income as under :--- "'gross total income' means the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, before making any deduction under this Chapter or under section 280-O." The definition of" gross total income" * is very clear that total income should be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter or under section 280-O of the Act. In other words, only after granting all deductions provided under the said provisions of the Act, the deduction under Chapter VI-A can be granted This court in CIT v. North Arcot District Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra), has held that no distinction can be made between the current year's depreciation and carried forward unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years in view of the specific provisions of section 32(2) of the Act. Giving effect to section 32(2) which deems unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier year as part of the current year's depreciation, the deduction under section 32(1) must relate to both the current year's depreciation as well as the depreciation of the earlier years. Giving effect to section 32(2) which deems unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier year as part of the current year's depreciation, the deduction under section 32(1) must relate to both the current year's depreciation as well as the depreciation of the earlier years. This court, therefore, held that from the language of section 80J(1) of the Act 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 can only be the profits and gains includible in the computation of the total income chargeable to tax. In other words, the profits or gains should be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before granting deduction under section 80J of the Act. The same view was also reiterated in Rockweld Electrodes India Ltd.'s case (supra), wherein this court has held that the set off of deficiency under section 80J should be made after setting off business losses of earlier years which have been carried forward. This court has arrived at the above view, after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of H. H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT 1994 (205) ITR 433, 1994 (116) CTR 55, 1993 (71) TAXMAN 237, 1994 (2) TLR 498, 1994 AIR(SC) 1904, 1993 (6) JT 183 , 1993 (4) Scale 315 , 1994 (S1) SCC 473, 1994 (116) CTR(SC) 55 and Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 AIR(SC) 1585, 1985 (S1) SCR 778, 1986 (1) SCC 43 , 1985 (1) SCALE 1216 , 1985 (2) CompLJ 389, 1985 (155) ITR 120, 1986 (1) UJ 86 , 1985 (47) CTR 349, 1985 (22) TAXMAN 49, 1986 SCC(Tax) 159, 120 SCC(p) 46, 1985 (47) CTR(SC) 349. In view of the decisions cited above, the Appellate Tribunal is not correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80J of the Act before setting off the earlier loss carried forward or unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the deduction under section 80J has to be allowed first before deducting the carried forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the deduction under section 80J has to be allowed first before deducting the carried forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation. Since the view of the Appellate Tribunal is in direct contrast with the above decisions of this court as well as the decision of the Supreme Court, we are unable to subscribe to the view of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the alleged intention of Parliament. Therefore, we answer the question of law referred to us, in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.