Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. This is an application for review of our order dated 12th August, 2011 by which we dismissed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 preferred by the applicant against an order dated June 23, 2004 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata in Income-tax Appeal bearing ITA No.1220 (Cal) of 1997 for the Assessment Year 1991-92. In the said appeal, the following two questions arose for determination: “i) “Whether on a true and proper interpretation of section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in view of the undisputed position that the garden tea business and purchased tea for which separate accounts are maintained and profits are separately computed, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the deduction under the said Section was required to be computed by aggregating the profits, export turn over and total turn over of all the businesses and not separately with reference to the profits, export turnover and total turnover of each business? “ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the determination of the deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 4,73,57,023/- as made by the Assessing Officer as against the appellant’s claim of Rs.6,22,61,946/- in respect of the purchased tea business and Rs.26,56,930/- in respect of the garden tea business?” By our order sought to be reviewed, we answered both the questions in the affirmative and against the assessee by relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3046, wherein the term “profit” in Section 80HHC, both in sub-section (1) and in sub-section (3) was held to be a positive profit worked out after taking into consideration losses if any. By relying upon the said decision, we overruled the contention of Dr. Pal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, that for the purpose of getting benefit of Section 80HHC of the Act, there may be separate calculation in respect of two different types of business of the assessee, because, in our opinion, without taking into consideration all the businesses of the assessee dealing with export, neither the export turnover nor the “positive profit” can be worked out. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present application for review. Dr. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present application for review. Dr. Pal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended before us that we committed an error apparent on the face of record in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. (Supra), which has no relevance in respect of Assessment Year 1991-92 and in support of such contention Dr. Pal relied upon a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mysodet P. Ltd. Vs. C.I.T., reported in (2008) 305 ITR 276 where the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court for relying upon the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd in calculating the benefit in that case relating to Assessment Year 199091 on the ground that the mode of calculation was different in the year 1996-97, the relevant assessment year involved in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. In other words, according to Dr. Pal, there was no scope of relying upon the principle laid down in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. (supra), which was decided in a case relating to the Assessment Year 1996-97 when the manner of calculation was different from the one applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this application for review is whether the principle laid down in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd (supra), is applicable to the facts of the present case. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that Section 80HHC has been the subject-matter of frequent amendment. The said section was inserted in the year 1983 and was substituted in the 1985 and thereafter, it was amended in 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2005. In view of such repeated amendments, the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair, reported in (2007) 295 ITR 228 cautioned that while construing Section 80HHC of the Act, the Court should be cautious in working the said section as applicable in a given assessment year. We relied upon the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. (Supra) only for the purpose of overruling the contention of Dr. K. Ravindranathan Nair, reported in (2007) 295 ITR 228 cautioned that while construing Section 80HHC of the Act, the Court should be cautious in working the said section as applicable in a given assessment year. We relied upon the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. (Supra) only for the purpose of overruling the contention of Dr. Pal that in order to get the benefit of Section 80HHC of the Act, the total export turnover of the appellant arising out of all the businesses is not required to be added together and that the separate export turnover from only the one of the businesses excluding the other is sufficient for the purpose of calculating the export turnover and the consequential benefit under Section 80HHC separately for each business. Our object of relying upon the principles laid down in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. was that as pointed out in that case, for giving benefit under Section 80HHC of the Act, there must be positive profit of the assessee and consequently, the question whether the assessee had the positive profit cannot be determined unless the total export turnover of the assessee and the resultant profit or the loss of all his businesses are taken into account. As pointed out by the Supreme Court even in the case Mysodet P. Ltd., relied upon by Dr. Pal, for calculating the benefit of Section 80HHC of the Act, the requisite formula to be applied is as follows: The benefit under Section 80HHC of the Act = The profit of the business X Export Turnover _______________ Total Turnover Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the benefit under the said section, the total export turnover and the total turnover of the assessee from all the business are required to be taken note of apart from the profit from all the businesses. If the export turnover of the “purchase tea business” of the assessee is not added to that of the “garden tea business”, one cannot arrive at the appropriate figures for applying the aforesaid formula. It appears that the principles laid down in the case IPCA Laboratory Ltd (supra) has been subsequently followed by the Supreme Court in the following other decisions relating to different assessment years where it applied the then provisions applicable but the formula referred to above has not been disputed in any of those decisions: 1. (2006)1 SCC 458 . - ITO Vs. (2006)1 SCC 458 . - ITO Vs. Induflex Property Pvt. Ltd; 2. (2006) 6 SCC 86 . - P. R.Provakar Vs. C. I. T; 3. (2007) 7 SCC 647 . - A. M. Moosa Vs. C. I. T; 4. (2007) 14 SCC 787 . - C.I.T. Vs. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd; 5. (2007) 15 SCC 1 . - C.I.T. Vs. K. Rabindranathan; 6. (2008) 4 SCC 22 . - Synco Industries Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax. The case of Synco Industries Ltd., the last one of the above-mentioned list, relates to the same Assessment Year, viz. 1991-92, with which we are concerned in the present case. Therefore, for the purpose of answering the question whether the export turnover means the export turnover arising out of all the businesses of the assessee, in our view, the aforesaid principle laid in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. (supra), regarding the concepts of total export turnover and the total turnover of the business of the assessee should be applied because in the absence of those, one cannot even arrive at the conclusion as to whether there has been positive profit by the assessee for the relevant assessment year which is the first and foremost condition to be fulfilled in order to get the benefit of that Section. We, therefore, find that there was no error, not to speak of error apparent on the face of record, in our order sought to be reviewed, justifying the review. The review application is, thus, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. I agree. Later: Photostat certified copy of this judgment be made available to the parties within a week from today upon compliance of usual formalities. I agree.