Judgment 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), the Tribunal has referred the following questions for answer by this Court: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under Section 8OHH of the IT Act would be available out of the income of the assessee as computed under the IT Act and not out of profits and gains of the industrial undertaking? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that where the assessee had not shown any taxable income, no deduction under Chapter VI-A could be allowed? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing the deduction under Section 8OHH of the IT Act out of the profits and gains of industrial undertakings known as Unit “A”, “B” and “D” as determined without deducting/adjusting profits/losses of other units or business of the assessee, depreciation, brought forward business loss, unabsorbed depreciation, investment allowance, etc, available to the assessee?” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. At the outset, Shri Anant Kasliwal, learned counsel for the assessee, submits that in view of amendment in the provisions of Section 8OAB of the Act, question No. 2 can be answered against the assessee and in view of answer to question No. 2, question Nos. 1 and 3 are of academic nature. Therefore, when question No. 2 is answered against the assessee, he cannot get any result of answer to question Nos. 1 and 3. 4. Per contra, Shri Singhi, learned counsel for the Revenue, submits that in view of Sections 80A(2) and 80B(5) ot the Act if the gross total income is nil, the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 8OHH of the Act. 5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, in the result, we answer question No. 2 in negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of answer to question No. 2, the answer to question Nos. 1 and 3 is of academic nature and, therefore, need not be answered, as prayed by Shri Kasliwal. Accordingly, this reference stands disposed of