JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Tax Appeal No. 1407 of 2009 challenges the order dated 18/02/2009 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 2463/Ahd/2008 and Tax Appeal No. 1408 of 2009 challenges the order dated 18/02/2009 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 2673/Ahd/2008, whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) and reversed the findings of AO. 2. The short facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 on 14/10/2005 which was taken up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act was issued and after considering the reply and submission, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 89,66,340/-. 2.1 The assessee took up the matter before the CIT(A) whereby the appeal of the assessee came to be allowed and assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act of Rs. 1,42,38,194/- as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue took the matter before the ITAT and after hearing both the parties, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the revenue, which has given rise to these appeals. 3. While admitting this appeals, following question was posed for our consideration: "Whether the Tribunal below has committed substantial error of law in holding that export incentives would come within the purview of profit derived from the export of articles or things of a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking within the meaning of Section 10B of the Act;" 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant - Department has mainly contended that the Tribunal and CIT(A) has committed serious error of law by granting export incentives as income within the purview of benefit and therefore it cannot be covered under Section 10B of the Act. He has taken this Court to the order passed by the AO and contended that the issue was discussed in detail and therefore both the orders passed by the authorities require to be quashed and set aside and issue raised in this appeal may be answered in favour of the Department. 5. We have the learned Counsel for the appellant - Department and have perused the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. 6. 5. We have the learned Counsel for the appellant - Department and have perused the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. 6. The CIT(A) has in last paragraph observed thus: "I have considered the submissions and have gone through the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Chloride India Ltd. 256 ITR 625 and accordingly I am of the opinion that export incentives do not form a part of total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 10B since even as per section 10B, export turnover do not include export incentives and in any formula if any item is excluded from the numerator then the same has also to be excluded from the denominator, otherwise the formula would become unworkable. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that export incentives should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s. 10B. In view of this, I hold that the appellant is entitled to the deduction n/s. 10B at Rs. 1,42,38,194/- as claimed by it in its return of income." 7. The Tribunal in its order at paragraph No. 7 has observed thus: "7. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the orders of the tax authorities. We find that the learned CIT(A) has based its order on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Motorola India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that term "from the business of" has much wider than the term "derived from industrial undertaking and keeping this distinction in mind, it has to be held that entire profits derived from the business of undertaking should be taken into consideration, while computing the eligible deduction u/s. 10AB of the Act, by applying the mandatory formula. The Tribunal also held that income from sale of import licences for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A/10B of the Act was to be decided in favour of the assessee. This being the position of law on the subject matter, the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the same, which in our opinion need no further interference from us. This ground in both the appeals is rejected." 8. This being the position of law on the subject matter, the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the same, which in our opinion need no further interference from us. This ground in both the appeals is rejected." 8. In the opinion of this Court, both the authorities have rightly come to the conclusion by considering the decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Chloride India Ltd. (supra) and this Court is in complete agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The issue raised in these appeals is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.