JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue. Grievance is against Annexure D verdict passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whereby, Annexure C order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to be affirmed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue came to be dismissed. 2. The sequence of events reveals that the assessment in the case of the respondent Assessee Company, who is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile tyres and tubes for the year 1995-96 was completed under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act on 31.03.1998, fixing the total income at Rs.24,28,66,234/- and the tax was assessed accordingly. The commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), on challenge, made some interference. Later, the assessment came to be re-opened in terms of Section 143(3) r/w. Sec.147 of the Income Tax Act and the total income was fixed as Rs.2,99,82,910/-, as per Annexure-A re-assessment order. 3. While so, the Assessing Officer observed that while completing the re-opened assessement, deduction was allowed under Section 80IA in respect of the Baroda Unit reckoning Rs.2,65,41,498/- as 30% of the profit of Rs.8,84,71,659/- without limiting the profit in terms of Section 80AB of the Income Tax Act. It was accordingly, that a notice was issued to the Assessee for rectification under Section 154 of the Act, finally leading to Annexure B order dated 16.05.2001, restricting the deduction to Rs.1,93,96,648/-. This was taken up in appeal by the Assessee and inspite of the observations in Annexure B order that the Assessee's representative had agreed to the rectification, as mentioned therein, the appellate authority finalised the matter, allowing the appeal as per Annexure C Order, directing the deduction under Section 80IA on the total of Rs.7,16,68,439/- instead of working out the deduction on Rs.6,46,55,496/-. This made the Revenue to feel aggrieved, who approached the Tribunal by filing I.T.Appeal No.251/Coch./2007. The said matter was considered along with three other appeals(two filed by the Assessee and one filed by the Revenue) in respect of the very same assessment year and they were finalised as per a common verdict vide Annexure D. 4. After taking note of the facts and figures and the rival submissions, the Tribunal held in paragraph 30 and 31 of Annexure D order as follows: “30. We have heard rival submissions and considered the facts and materials on record. After taking note of the facts and figures and the rival submissions, the Tribunal held in paragraph 30 and 31 of Annexure D order as follows: “30. We have heard rival submissions and considered the facts and materials on record. Sub-section (5) to section 80IA mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of subsection( 1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the Assessee during the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year upto and including the assessment year for which the determination is to be made. It is clear from the section that for the purpose of allowing deduction under Section 80IA, we have to consider the profits of eligible business undertaking alone as if it was the only business of the Assessee. 31. In this case, the Assessee's profits from the eligible business, viz. Baroda unit is Rs.7,16,68,439/-. Hence according to Section 80IA, deduction at 30% of this amount is allowable to the Assessee. The only condition is that such deduction should not exceed the gross total income of the Assessee. In this case, the gross business income of the Assessee is Rs.64655496/- whereas 30% profits of the Baroda Unit will be far below of Rs.64655496/-. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the first appellate authority and as such we confirm the same by rejecting the appeal of the revenue.” Annexure D order is put to challenge in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. 5. Though notice was ordered in the appeal a decade back on 20.03.2009, no substantial question of law is seen framed in the proceedings. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the course followed by the Appellate Authority while passing Annexure C order and the order passed by the Tribunal vide Annexure D, are not liable to be sustained, it being contrary to the statutory prescriptions; particularly with reference to Section 80IA, r/w. Section 80AB of the Income Tax Act. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the course followed by the Appellate Authority while passing Annexure C order and the order passed by the Tribunal vide Annexure D, are not liable to be sustained, it being contrary to the statutory prescriptions; particularly with reference to Section 80IA, r/w. Section 80AB of the Income Tax Act. Reliance is also sought to be placed on two verdicts passed by the Apex Court reported in (2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC) [IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax] and (2007)291 ITR 380 (SC) [Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd.]. 6. Heard Mr. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri Joseph Markose, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent Assessee as well. 7. The only dispute is with regard to the calculation effected by the authorities concerned. To put it more clear, whether the extent of deduction (workable at 30%) is to be made with reference to Rs.6,46,55,496/-, as done by the Assessing Officer while passing Annexure A or should it be on the sum of Rs.7,16,68,439/-. The course followed by the Assessing Officer, while passing Annexure B rectification order, restricting the deduction under Section 80IA to Rs.1,93,96,648/-, (being 30% of Rs.6,46,55,496/-), as against 30% of Rs.7,16,68,439/-(as claimed by the Assessee) has been interdicted and corrected by the appellate authority while passing Annexure C order, directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80IA of the Act on Rs.7,16,68,439/-. This has been sustained by the Tribunal after a detailed scrutiny of the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law. The challenge raised against the said calculation can never be termed as a point involving any substantial question of law envisaged under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. 8. The decisions cited by the Learned Government Pleader for the Revenue are not applicable as such, to the case in hand. It is true that there is a non-obstante clause in Section 80AB, the effect of which has been highlighted in the decision (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC) (cited supra). However, coming to sub-Section (5) of Section 80IA, there is another non-obstante clause, which is with reference to any other provisions contained in the Act and it is with reference to the said provision, that the Tribunal has made specific observations in paragraph 30 of Annexure D order. 9. However, coming to sub-Section (5) of Section 80IA, there is another non-obstante clause, which is with reference to any other provisions contained in the Act and it is with reference to the said provision, that the Tribunal has made specific observations in paragraph 30 of Annexure D order. 9. The thrust of the submissions made by the learned Standing counsel for the Revenue is that, though the Assessee is entitled to get deduction to an extent of 30% of the profit derived from the Baroda Unit (total of Rs.71668439/-), since the income from all sources as finally accounted for, reflects only a lower figure of Rs.6,46,55,496/-, 30% has to be worked out with reference to the aforesaid total income of Rs.64655496/-, which is stated as the mandate of Section 80AB of the Act. We find it difficult to accept the above proposition for the reasons noted below. 10. For easy understanding and ready reference, Sections 80IA and 80AB of the Income Tax Act are extracted below: Section 80IA “(1) Where the gross total income of an Assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking or an enterprise referred to in sub-section (4) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business) there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the Assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to hundred percent of profits and gains derived from such business for the first five assessment years commencing at any time during the periods as specified in subsection( 2) and thereafter, twenty-five per cent of the profits and gains for further five assessment years. Provided that where the Assessee is a company, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words “twenty-five per cent”, the words “thirty per cent” had been substituted. Provided that where the Assessee is a company, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words “twenty-five per cent”, the words “thirty per cent” had been substituted. Section 80AB: “Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section[included in this chapter under the heading 'C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes in respect of any income of the nature specified in that section which is included in the gross total income of the Assessee, then, notwithstanding anything contained in that section, for the purpose of computing the deduction under that section, the amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act (before making any deduction under this Chapter] shall alone be deemed to be the amount of income of that nature which is derived or received by the Assessee and which is included in his gross total income.” 11. What is spoken to by Section 80IA is the clear cut eligibility of the Assessee to get 30% of the income as profit derived by the Assessee from the eligible business. It does not say that 30% has to be calculated with reference to the total income of the Unit from all other sources; nor does it say, 30% of the profit from the eligible business or 30% of the total income, whichever is lower. 12. Similarly, Section 80AB only says the mode of computation with regard to the deduction required to be made or allowed under any of the Sections of Chapter VIA under the Head-C-Deductions in respect of certain payments. The terminology in the said provision clearly gives an idea that computation has to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act before making any deduction under Chapter VIA. This means, the Assessee will not be eligible to claim deduction first and then set off, if at all there is any carry forward loss and thus to reduce the tax liability. The said provision also does not say that the extent of deduction to be made under Section 80IA or such other provision under the Head -C-'Deductions in respect of certain payments' of Chapter VIA is to be made with reference to the total income from all other sources or confining it to the lower extent, if it is less than the profit from the eligible business. 13. 13. The precedents sought to be relied on by the Revenue (judgments of the Apex Court cited supra) are only to the effect that, if the total income shown by the Assessee (as available from all sources) is less than the extent of deduction available, no benefit can be aspired or will be accrued to the Assessee. 14. In the instant case, 30% of the profit from the Baroda Unit is Rs.71668439 x 30/100 = Rs.2,15,00,531.70/-; whereas the total income from all sources revealed by the Assessee is only Rs.64655496/-. As it stands so, 30% of deduction under Section 80IA would be deducted from the total income, which is much more than the said amount and the Assessee is eligible to have the deduction as allowed by the Commissioner and upheld by the Tribunal. 15. The idea and understanding of the Revenue, with regard to the scope of Section 80AB, to enable them to reckon the figure of 30%, confining it to the lower extent of total income from all sources, instead of reckoning it as 30% of the business profit from the eligible business, is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. 16. The crucial question to be considered in this appeal is whether the stipulation under Section 80AB of the Income Tax Act would govern the deduction of 30% of the profit under Section 80IA of the Act derived by the Assessee from the eligible business to the extent of reducing the benefit with regard to the total income declared from all sources]. The stand of the Assessee is supported by ruling of the Division Bench of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jose Thomas [(2002) 253 ITR 553 (Ker.)] with regard to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act where the ratio of the dictum is same. 17. Since there is no ambiguity in the provisions of Section 80IA, the statute has to be read and understood as it is and cannot be sought to be reI. written or supplemented in any manner. This is more so when Section 80AB stipulating the manner of computation under the Income Tax Act in respect of the deductions to be made under the Income Tax Act, does not come to the rescue of Revenue. This alone has been projected and highlighted by the Tribunal in the order under challenge. written or supplemented in any manner. This is more so when Section 80AB stipulating the manner of computation under the Income Tax Act in respect of the deductions to be made under the Income Tax Act, does not come to the rescue of Revenue. This alone has been projected and highlighted by the Tribunal in the order under challenge. As it stand so, there is no substantial question of law to call for interference to decide the issue in favour of the Revenue. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.