Judgment :- Sankarasubban, J. In I.T.R.No.232 of 1997, the questions of law arise are as follows: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the manner and method of computation of profits by the Tribunal for the purpose of deduction u/s 80 HHC is valid and in accordance with law? 2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the light of the facts and figures given in the enclosure to the reference application, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80 HHC in a sum of Rs.5,27,108/- and the allowance of the same by the Tribunal, are in accordance with law? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and factually the amount being commission paid on export sales as could be seen from the assessment order and the same having been debited by the assessee as an expenditure in its profit and loss account the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding the amount as ‘commission received’ and in further holding that ‘there is no warrant to exclude such commission’ and are not the above findings and approach wrong and uncalled for? In I.T.R.No.262 of 1997, the question of law arises is as follows: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee, who is having income from tea auctioning and export of goods, is eligible for deduction under sec. 80 HHC of the Incometax Act at Rs.5,62,604/- as claimed by the assessee and not Rs.5,62,604/- as claimed by he assessee and not Rs.92,670/- being the extent of the profit from export business, as held by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)?” In I.T.R.No.276 of 1997, the question arises is as follows: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80 HHC on the entire business profit taken as a proportion of the export turnover to the total turnover?” 2. When the matter came up for hearing, both sides said that the decision reported in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax – 266 I.T.R. 521, applies. When the matter came up for hearing, both sides said that the decision reported in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax – 266 I.T.R. 521, applies. In the above case the Supreme Court held as follows: “A plain reading of Section 80 HHC makes it clear that in arriving at profits earned from export of both self manufactured goods and trading goods, the profits and losses in both trades have to be taken into consideration. If after such adjustments there is a positive profit the assessee would be entitled to deduction under Section 80 HHC(1). If there is a loss the assessee would not be entitled to deduction”. It is further stated thus: “A plain reading of sub-section (3)(c) shows that “profits from such exports” has to be profits of exports of self-manufactured goods plus profits of exports of trading goods”. 3. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the questions of law are answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. It was then submitted that for the purpose of computation the matter was to go back to the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals). 4. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and direct the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) to compute the profits in accordance with law and as stated in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax – 266 I.T.R 521. I.T.Rs. are disposed of.