Judgment :- Chitra Venkataraman, J. The present reference at the instance of the assessee relates to the Assessment Year 1992-93. The question relates to the relief under Section 80 HHC. The following are the questions of law raised in the reference under 256(1) of the Income Tax Act: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance of earlier years should be set off while computing the profits of business for the purpose of determining the relief under Section 80 HHC? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the entire amount receivable under an agreement for sale of goods should be treated as sale consideration for purposes of computing relief under Section 80 HHC? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in rejecting the ground raised by the applicant regarding computation of relief under proviso to Section 80 HHC(3) in respect of incentives received by the applicant? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have decided the claim of the applicant regarding computation of relief under proviso to Section 80 HHC(3) in respect of incentives received in as much as the relief under Section 80 HHC was on appeal before the Tribunal? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the issue on appeal before him, should have remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) and not dismissed the appeal of the applicant on this issue? 2. It is seen that the assessing authority deducted the unabsorbed depreciation and the unabsorbed investment allowance carried forward from earlier years in computing the profits and gains from business and calculated deduction under Section 80 HHC. The contention of the assessee was that the unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance could not be set off against the profits and gains of business for the purpose of computing the relief under Section 80 HHC. Consequently, they were entitled to the relief in terms of Sub Section (1-A) of Section 80 HHC. .3. The contention of the assessee was that the unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance could not be set off against the profits and gains of business for the purpose of computing the relief under Section 80 HHC. Consequently, they were entitled to the relief in terms of Sub Section (1-A) of Section 80 HHC. .3. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the relief, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-VI), who also rejected the contention of the assessee. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee applicant took the contention that Section 80 HHC is an independent Section and that the deduction had to be worked out in terms of the provisions contained therein. Consequently, given the Scheme of Section 80 HHC, the profit under Section 80 HHC was not to be computed in a normal manner. The Tribunal rejected the contention, taking the view that in terms of Section 80 AB, the unabsorbed depreciation and the unabsorbed investment allowance were to be deducted from the profits and gains of the business for the purpose of determining the relief under Section 80 HHC. Thus, the Tribunal confirmed the orders of the authorities below. Aggrieved of the said view, the assessee preferred a petition under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for referring the questions of law as stated above. The Tribunal, on the facts stated, referred the questions for the opinion of this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee contended that the view of the Tribunal that the computation of profit and loss have to be done in the normal circumstances for the purpose of working the deduction is totally erroneous considering the fact that unlike other provisions in this Chapter, the relief has to be under Section 80 HHC has to be considered as per Sub Section (3). He submitted that in so computing the deduction, Section 80 AB has no supervening controlling effect. In this connection, learned counsel for the applicant assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 246 ITR 429 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS LTD.). Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 266 ITR 521, (IPCA LABORATORY LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX), learned counsel submitted that the same has to be understood in the context of an assessee incurring a loss. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS LTD.). Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 266 ITR 521, (IPCA LABORATORY LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX), learned counsel submitted that the same has to be understood in the context of an assessee incurring a loss. He laid a particular emphasis on the decision of the Bombay High Court to state that the language used in Section 80 HHC is different from the other Sections in the Chapter. He submitted that for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 80 HHC, the formula is given under Sub Section (3). Hence Section 80 AB has no play in the matter of working out the deduction, except to have a harmonious construction that the deduction under Sub Section (3) is not disturbed. He submitted that for the purpose of working out the total income alone, Section 80 AB will have its application and thereafter Sub Section (3) of Section 80 HHC alone will have its play. In the circumstances, he submitted the Bombay High Court decision will have to be applied to grant relief. .5. Learned standing counsel for Income Tax Department, however, placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in 266 ITR 521, (IPCA LABORATORY LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) and submitted that in view of the Apex Court decision overruling the Bombay High Court decision, the relief has to be worked out only as interpreted by the Apex Court and the reliance placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court is no longer maintainable in law. 6. A perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 266 ITR 521, (IPCA LABORATORY LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) shows that overruling the interpretation given on the Scope of Section 80 HHC by the Bombay High Court, the Apex Court held that "Section 80 AB has been given an overriding effect over all other Sections, in Chapter VI-A. Section 80 HHC does not provide that its provisions are to prevail over Section 80 AB or over any other provision of the Act." Section 80 HHC would thus be governed by Section 80 AB. The decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Kerala High Court cannot be said to be the correct law. The decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Kerala High Court cannot be said to be the correct law. Section 80 AB makes it clear that the computation of income has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act." Thus, the Apex Court held that Section 80 AB has to be given its due weightage in calculating the relief under Section 80 HHC. 7. It must be seen that Section 80 HHC provides for deduction of profit from the gross total income. Sub Section (3) is a machinery provision to lay down the manner of calculating the profits which constitutes deduction under Section 80 HHC(1). Consequently, Section 80 HHC(3) aids in the working of the deduction under Section 80HHC(1). Considering the fact that Section 80 HHC is a Section which comes under Chapter VI-A providing for special deduction in gross total income, necessarily, the computation for deduction has to be in accordance with the total income computed in a manner provided for under Section 80 AB. It is relevant to note that Section 80 A deals with deduction to be made under Chapter VI-A in computing the total income. It may also be noted that Section 80A(2) lays down that the aggregate amount of the income under Section VI-A shall not exceed the gross total income of the assessee. Read in the context of Section 80A and Section 80 AB, the scheme of deduction under Section 80 HHC has to be computed out of the income from profits and gains of business in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as stated so under Section 80 AB. A reading of this provision does not yield any other interpretation as suggested by the assessee. 8. It is no doubt true that the facts of the case in the report decision of the Supreme Court relates to a case of loss. Yet, it must be noted that the mandate of Section 80 AB is that it starts with the words "where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any Section of this Chapter, ... Yet, it must be noted that the mandate of Section 80 AB is that it starts with the words "where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any Section of this Chapter, ... notwithstanding anything contained in that Section, "for the purpose of computing the deduction under the Section, the amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, `before any making any deduction under this Chapter`, shall alone be deemed to be the amount of income of that nature which is derived or received by the assessee and which is included in his gross total income." It may be seen that the provisions of Section 80 AB contemplates that the gross total income has first to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. When it comes to a deduction, Section 80 AB further provides that for the purpose of deduction under any of the Sections in Chapter VI-A, the amount of income of that nature has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which means, necessarily for the purpose of deduction, the income of that nature computed for deduction must have a working in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If that be so, income from profits and gains of business must necessarily conform to the provisions in Part-D, including set off and carry forward. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court, the argument placed on the strength of the decision of the Bombay High Court is not sustainable in law. Consequently we do not find any merit in upholding the contention in the assessee. In the circumstances, the claim of the assessee has to be rejected. Consequently, the questions raised before this Court are answered in the affirmatory and against the assessee. On the last question raised, the Tribunal has held that the said question does not arise after the order of the Commissioner. In the circumstances, the references are answered against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs.