JUDGMENT : Vinod Chandran, J. The Revenue is in appeal from the order of the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee took a preliminary objection insofar as the issue being covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the assessee's own case. The learned Senior Counsel for Government of India (Taxes), however, submits that the issue herein is quite distinct and different from that decided by the High Court, which decision was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We will first look into the preliminary objection raised on the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8549/2013 [M/s.Patspin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax], which arose from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Patspin India Ltd. [(2011) 245 CTR 97 (Ker.)]. 2. A reading of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court indicates that for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06 [five assessment years] the issue arose as to whether deduction of export profit for 100% export oriented industrial unit has to be granted with reference to the profit of the industrial unit computed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity "the Act"], which includes set off of unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years as provided under section 32 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court found that carried forward depreciation should be set off in the computation of business profit before the exemption under Section 10B of the Act is considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the aforesaid finding based on a decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Another v. Yokogawa India Limited [ (2017) 2 SCC 1 ]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cited decision, held that the deductions under Section 10A would be prior to the commencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act for arriving at the total income of the assessee from the gross total income. In such circumstances, (2011) 245 CTR 97 (Ker.) is no longer good law. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, the issue in the aforesaid appeals are different. 3. In such circumstances, (2011) 245 CTR 97 (Ker.) is no longer good law. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, the issue in the aforesaid appeals are different. 3. Suffice it to notice on facts, that the assessee had two units, Unit-A and Unit-B, entitled to deduction under Section 10B by virtue of they being 100% Export Oriented Units [EOU's]. Unit-A commenced availing the benefits under Section 10B, as it stood then, from the year 1994-95 and Unit-B from 1997-98. Section 10B as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 01.04.2001 provided for a benefit of deduction in any five consecutive assessment years falling within a block period of eight years. Unit-A, hence, though commencing in the year 1994-95 and entitled to the benefit under Section 10B, did not claim the same for the first three years, obviously intending to claim the benefit in the last five consecutive years. Unit-B, likewise, though commencing from 1997-98 and entitled to the benefit under Section 10B from that year, also did not claim the benefit for the said year intending to have it in the later years within the eight year period. By Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 01.04.2001, Section 10B was amended and the period of eligible deduction was specified as ten consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or computer software. Obviously the assessee then started claiming benefit for all the subsequent years till the 10th year, for both units. 4. There is no dispute with respect to the claim under Section 10B and, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reversing the decision of this Court in the assessee's own case, has no application to the issue arising here. Civil Appeal No.8549/2013 was with respect to the claim under Section 10B being allowed even prior to any computation of profits after setting off of the unabsorbed depreciation. Civil Appeal No.8549/2013 was with respect to the claim under Section 10B being allowed even prior to any computation of profits after setting off of the unabsorbed depreciation. Here, the question is as to whether the assessee could claim the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation available to it for the years in which the assessee did not make a claim under Section 10B; in the subsequent years even within the tax holiday period, to set off the same against the other incomes received by the assessee as distinguished from the income generated from Unit-A and Unit-B. 5. The questions of law framed are as follows: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Assessing Authority to give benefit of set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Unit A for Asst. Years 1994-95 to 1996-97 against the assessable income for the Asst. Years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2006-07 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case unabsorbed depreciation of Unit B for Asst.Year 1997-98 could be set off against taxable income for Asst. Year 2006-07?" 6. The learned Senior Counsel placed emphasis on sub-section (6) of Section 10B to contend that when there is a tax holiday provided entitling the entire income generated by a 100% export-oriented undertaking to be granted deduction, all other allowances and deductions under the Act would be deemed to have been granted under sub-section (6) of Section 10B. The learned Counsel for the assessee would, however, contend that for the relevant assessment years, being 1994-95 to 1996-97 [with respect to Unit-A] and 1997-98 [with respect to Unit-B] are years in which the assessee did not claim benefit under Section 10B. The effect of sub-section (6) would be available only if there is a claim made under Section 10B is the specific contention raised. The entire issue revolves on the interpretation to be placed on sub-section (6) of Section 10B. 7. The effect of sub-section (6) would be available only if there is a claim made under Section 10B is the specific contention raised. The entire issue revolves on the interpretation to be placed on sub-section (6) of Section 10B. 7. We extract hereunder sub-section (6) of Section 10B: (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years, or of any previous year, relevant to any subsequent assessment year.- (i) section 32, section 32A, section 33, section 35 and clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36 shall apply as if every allowance or deduction referred to therein and relating to or allowable for any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April, 2001, in relation to any building, machinery, plant or furniture used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking in the previous year relevant to such assessment year or any expenditure incurred for the purposes of such business in such previous year had been given full effect to for that assessment year itself and accordingly sub-section (2) of section 32, clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 32A, clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowances or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set-off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April, 2001. (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80-I or section 80-IA or section 80-IB in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year". In a nutshell, sub-section (6) is a non-obstante clause, which provides that in computing the total income of the assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year immediately succeeding the last of the relevant assessment years, or of any previous year, relevant to any subsequent assessment year; the provisions, inter alia of Section 32 for each of the relevant assessment year, would be deemed to have been given full effect in that assessment year itself, if the claim under Section 10B is availed of. Sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (6) makes it further clear that in computation of depreciation allowance under Section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be deemed to have been claimed and allowed for each of such relevant assessment years. But this is confined to the depreciation claim arising in that relevant assessment year and not of the carried forward depreciation of any earlier year. Sub-section (6), in addition to providing for certain deductions having been given full effect to for the assessment year, also makes inapplicable the provisions which permit carry forward of such deductions, depreciation or losses. The "relevant assessment year" also has been defined under clause (v) of Explanation 2 to mean "...any assessment year falling within a period of ten consecutive assessment years, referred to in this section". 8. Hence, when there is a tax holiday provided for ten consecutive assessment years to 100% EOUs, among others, depreciation, which is the specific subject matter of the present appeals, would be deemed to have been claimed and allowed in the relevant assessment year in which there is eligible a tax holiday. The contention of the respondent-assessee is that when deduction under Section 10B is not claimed for a particular year, then necessarily there should be permitted a carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, since sub-section (6) of Section 10B would only be applicable if there is a deduction claimed under the beneficial provision. This view has to be accepted since, when a claim under Section 10B is made in a relevant year; the claim for depreciation arising in that year alone would be deemed to have been allowed, giving the provision for set off full effect. The unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from the earlier years would be permitted set off against any other income or allowed to be carried forward. The unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from the earlier years would be permitted set off against any other income or allowed to be carried forward. In the present case, the assessee claimed set off; of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 (Unit-A) and 1997-98 (Unit-B) in the years 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2006-07. The unabsorbed depreciation claimed by the assessee is of the earlier years, when there was no claim made under Section 10B. Such unabsorbed depreciation is permitted carry forward in the subsequent years. What is deemed to be allowed, in any relevant year, in which deduction under Section 10B is claimed, is the depreciation arising in that year. The unabsorbed depreciation carried forward to the relevant year, from any year in which Section 10B was not claimed, remains untouched and could be set off against any income, for which Section 10B deduction is not permissible and also could be carried forward to the next years, if not fully set off against other incomes. The prohibition in carry forward is only to the depreciation claim arising in that relevant year; wherein a deduction is claimed under Section 10B; which stands totally effaced by reason of the deeming provision; on applying Section 10B deduction. In the light of the above findings, the appeals would stand rejected affirming the order of the Tribunal and answering the questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.