JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under S.260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on two issues decided in favour of the respondent assessee. 2. We have heard learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and learned counsel for the respondent assessee. 3. The respondent is an industrial unit in the Cochin Special Economic Zone engaged in production and export of goods, most of which is to one client outside India. While setting up the industrial unit, the respondent got incentives from both the Central and State Governments, some of which were in the form of subsidy based on capital investments which include cost of plant and machinery. In the regular assessment for the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on the written down value of block of assets in terms of the claim made by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer noticed that part of the cost of the machinery forming block of assets was subsidised by the State Government and so much so, the actual cost of the assets has to be reduced by the subsidy amount as provided under Explanation 10 to S.43(1) of the Act while granting depreciation. In other words, the finding of the Assessing Officer in the reassessment is that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on cost of block of assets as reduced by that part of the cost met by the State through subsidies. Admittedly, Explanation 10 to S.43(1) of the Act providing for deduction of subsidy amount from the actual cost for the purpose of granting depreciation was introduced with effect from 01/04/1999. 4. Even though the CIT (Appeals) rejected the appeal, the 2nd appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that subsidy having been received before 31/03/1998 and depreciation was granted for subsequent years based on the actual cost without reducing the subsidy amount under Explanation 10 to S.43(1), the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the written down value for the assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal held that subsidy having been received before 31/03/1998 and depreciation was granted for subsequent years based on the actual cost without reducing the subsidy amount under Explanation 10 to S.43(1), the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the written down value for the assessment year 2002-03. The main reasoning of the Tribunal is that the provision for reduction of subsidy from cost of machinery was introduced by the above amendment only with effect from 01/04/1999 and so much so, it does not apply to investments made any time prior to that which in this case is before 31/03/1998. Since the Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal, the Department filed this appeal before us challenging the findings of the Tribunal. 5. After hearing both sides we are unable to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal because the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., reported in 210 ITR 830 (SC). Further we do not know on what basis the Department can introduce retrospectivity to the amendment introduced when the legislature has not done so. Obviously, the above amendment is prospective in nature and the same applies to investments made on plant and machinery and other depreciable assets after 01/04/1999. So much so, we uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal on this issue. 6. The next issue raised pertains to the pattern of determination of export profit eligible for deduction. There is no dispute on the formula applied for determining the export profit under S.10B of the Act. However, the dispute cropped up because assessee's invoice value on exports got reduced by the value of components supplied by the foreign buyer which made payment of only the net amount. There is no dispute on the formula applied for determining the export profit under S.10B of the Act. However, the dispute cropped up because assessee's invoice value on exports got reduced by the value of components supplied by the foreign buyer which made payment of only the net amount. Even though assessment was completed accepting the export profit returned by the assessee by treating the export turnover as well as the total turnover as reduced by value of components supplied by the foreign buyer and adjusted from the export bills, In the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer took the view that even though export turnover should be the net amount obtained after reducing the value of components supplied by the foreign buyer, which was retained by them, so far as the total turnover is concerned, the Assessing Officer refused to exclude the value of the components withheld by the foreign buyer while settling the export bills. In other words, a different yardstick was adopted by the Assessing Officer in the reassessment completed under S.147 of the Act wherein he adopted gross invoice value on the exports as export turnover forming part of total turnover and adopted it as the denominator in the determination of eligible export profit for deduction under S.10B(4) of the Act. Here again the Tribunal followed the Special Bench decision of the Chennai Tribunal which again is rendered based on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works, reported in 290 ITR 667 (SC). We are unable to accept the contention of the Standing Counsel that export turnover forming part of total turnover for the purpose of denominator should include the value of the components supplied by the foreign buyer which was not received by the assessee. We do not know how the Department can raise this contention because for the purpose of the numerator that is while adopting export turnover they have accepted the position that export turnover is the net amount received in convertible foreign exchange which is paid by the foreign buyer after deducting cost of components supplied by them. In fact, the total turnover-is the gross turnover which comprises of the turnover of business done domestically and the export business. In fact, the total turnover-is the gross turnover which comprises of the turnover of business done domestically and the export business. For numerator and denominator export turnover has to be one and the same and the Department is bound to treat only actual export turnover which is received in convertible foreign exchange by the assessee as forming part of total turnover. In other words, the export turnover should be the same amount both as numerator and forming part of total turnover being the denominator for determining export profits under S.10B(4) of the Act. We, therefore uphold the findings of the Tribunal and dismiss the Departmental Appeal on this issue as well. Consequently, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.