ORDER : Ashok Bhan, J. The point involved in the present case is: whether Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are independent of each other and therefore a new industrial unit can claim deductions under both the sections on the gross total income independently or that deduction under Section 80-I can be taken on the reduced balance after taking into account the benefit taken under Section 80-HH. 2. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Income Tax, Jabalpur 229 ITR 123 took the view that both the sections are independent and, therefore, the deductions could be claimed both under Sections 80-HH and 80-I on the gross total. Against this judgment a Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court which was dismissed on the ground of delay on 21.07.2000 [see 245 ITR 71 (St.)]. 3. The decision in J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was followed by the same High Court in the case of Commissioner Income Tax v. Alpine Solvex (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 92 of 1999 decided on May 2, 2000. Special Leave Petition against this decision was dismissed by this Court on 12.01.2001 (see 247 ITR 36 (St.)). 4. This view has been followed repeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases against which no Special leave Petitions were filed meaning thereby that the department has accepted the view taken in these judgments. See Commissioner Income Tax v. Nima Specific Family Trust 248 ITR 29 (Bom.); Commissioner Income Tax v. Chokshi Contacts P. Ltd. 251 ITR 587 (Raj.); Commissioner Income Tax v. Amod Stamping 274 ITR 176(Guj.); Commissioner Income Tax v. Mittal Appliances P. Ltd. 270 ITR 65 (MP); Commissioner Income Tax v. Rochiram & Sons 271 ITR 444 (Raj.); Commissioner Income Tax v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar 276 ITR 664 (MP); Commissioner Income Tax v. SB Oil Industries 274 ITR 495 (P&H); Commissioner Income Tax v. M/.s SKG Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 119 (2005) DLT 673; and Commissioner Income Tax v. Lucky Laboratories 200 CTR 305 (All.). 5. Since the special leave petitions filed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have been dismissed and the department has not filed the special leave petitions against the judgments of different High Courts following the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 5. Since the special leave petitions filed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have been dismissed and the department has not filed the special leave petitions against the judgments of different High Courts following the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The department having accepted the view taken in those judgments cannot be permitted to take a contrary view in the present case involving the same point. Accordingly, Civil Appeal is dismissed. No costs.