JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore, dated February 7, 2001, and the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in I. T. A. No. 390/Bang/2001, dated February 20, 2004, for the assessment year 1996-97. 2. The only point in dispute before the Assessing Officer was while computing deduction under Section 80HHC, whether the loss incurred by the assessee for the previous years has to be given set off or not. The Assessing Officer while passing an order of assessment held that the loss sustained by the assessee for the earlier years should be given set off. But, it was contended by the assessee that the loss sustained in the previous years need not be given set off. The contention of the assessee was overruled by the Assessing Officer and accordingly, an order of assessment was passed. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal in part and held that the loss incurred by the assessee for the earlier years has to be given deductions, while computing deductions under Section 80HHC. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, held that the reasons given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were not acceptable and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and directed the Assessing Officer to accept the computation made by the assessee under Section 80HHC, as the same is in accordance with law. 4. The following substantial questions of law are raised in this appeal: 1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that brought forward of losses of earlier year should not be deducted from the profit of the assessee for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal has failed to consider and record a finding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80HHC of the Act when confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner, by taking into consideration the Explanation to Section 80HHC and Section 80AB of the Act? 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. 2. Whether the Tribunal has failed to consider and record a finding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80HHC of the Act when confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner, by taking into consideration the Explanation to Section 80HHC and Section 80AB of the Act? 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6. The only question in dispute before the Assessing Officer was how deductions under Section 80HHC was to be computed. The grievance of the assessee was that the loss sustained by it in the earlier years should not be given deduction for the purpose of computation under Section 80HHC. The hon'ble Supreme Court in Synco Industries Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax, Mumbai and Another, (2008) 299 ITR 444 SC has held, how the loss sustained by the assessee for the earlier years has to be considered. Therefore, we can only direct the Assessing Officer to follow the guidelines issued by the hon'ble Supreme Court and compute deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. In the circumstances, the direction issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has to be deleted. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.