JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.--The revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal') in ITAs No. 795 & 760 Bang/1991, dated 17-3-1999. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. According to the revenue , following two substantial questions of law arise from the order of the Tribunal. "1. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the difference between the deemed total income (as computed under section 115J of the Income Tax Act) and the total income as determined under the Act can be treated as unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward as per section 115J(2) of the Act when the company has declared a profit as per regular computation of income ? 2. Whether, the difference between the deemed total income as computed under section 115J of the Act and the total income as determined under regular provision of the Act would defeat the very purpose and object of enacting Chapter XII-B of the Act when the company has declared a profit as per regular computation of income ?" 2. The assessee is a public limited company. For the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 the provisions of Chapter XII-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), were applicable. The assessing officer for both these assessment years has computed the total income and book profits as per section 115J of the Act. The income returned and the computation is as under :- Assessment year Income returned Total income computed Profit under section 115J 1988-89 Rs. 1,15,53,680 Rs. 41,66,160 Rs. 1,15,15,430 1989-90 Rs. 1,64,32,227 Rs. 1,65,11,070 Rs. 4,05,74,352 3. The assessing officer after computing the book profits as stated above declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation. 4. The assessee being aggrieved against the order of assessment in respect of the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after considering various contentions raised by the assessee dismissed the appeal. The assessee preferred a further appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed. It has been held that the assessee would be entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation under section 115J(2) of the Act. 5. Admit. We proceed to determine the questions raised with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 6. The assessee preferred a further appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed. It has been held that the assessee would be entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation under section 115J(2) of the Act. 5. Admit. We proceed to determine the questions raised with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 6. The revenue has come up in an appeal under section 260A of the Act contending that the order passed by the Tribunal runs contrary to the judgment of this court in Widia (India) Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 242 ITR 678 KAR. 7. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the two points raised in these appeals are concluded in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the Division Bench judgment of this court referred to above. Counsel for the assessee contends that against the order of the High Court, Special Leave Petition has been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. We allow these appeals in terms of the judgment of this court in Widia (India) Ltd. & Others (supra) and answer the questions in the negative that is against the assessee and in favour of the revenue .