This appeal by assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A)-III, Bangalore, dt. 14th Jan., 2001. assessee-company has set up unit which is eligible for exemption under s. 10A of Act. While computing total income, assessee was allowed exemption under s. 10A of Act. profit of business was arrived at thereafter. assessee is also eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC. While computing profit of business eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC, profit eligible for exemption under s. 10A was reduced. While adopting export turnover, it also included turnover of unit eligible for exemption under s. 10A. AO held that profit of EHTP unit, income from which is exempt under s. 10A, export turnover of said unit could not be included in export turnover for purpose of computing deduction under s. 80HHC. It is pertinent to note that export turnover on FOB basis is Rs. 15,11,77,684 as computed by assessee. At same time, it is also mentioned that export turnover of EHTP unit eligible under s. 10A is Rs. 15,55,42,387. AO held that since entire export turnover relates to EHTP unit, assessee is not entitled to any deduction under s. 80HHC as profit arising from such turnover is exempt under s. 10A. While so holding, AO and learned CIT(A) relied upon decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 275: (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). Learned counsel for assessee Shri Parthasarathy submitted that claim of deduction under s. 80HHC of Act by appellant with respect to profits of EHTP unit is correct notwithstanding fact that income from said unit is exempt under s. 10A of Act. decision relied on by appellant in Jindal Exports (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1989) 31 ITD 217 (Del) is squarely applicable to appellant s case. decision relied on by learned assessing authority in Escorts Ltd. s case (supra) is not at all applicable to appellant s case. He further submitted that while computing profit of business, assessee has reduced profit of EHTP unit. But only for purpose of computing deduction under s. 80HHC, turnover of said unit is included in export turnover, as admittedly, turnover is in respect of export of eligible goods. Learned Departmental Representative on other hand kly supported appellate order. Apart from relying upon decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. s case (supra), he further relied upon decision of Hon ble Gauhati High Court in case of CIT vs. Sudarshan Plywood Industries Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (Gau) 442: (2000) 245 ITR 751 (Gau). We have carefully considered relevant facts and arguments advanced. important question to be determined is whether while computing deduction under s. 80HHC, turnover of units claiming exemption under s. 10A is also to be included or not. As per s. 80AB of Act, deduction under s. 80HHC in Chapter VI-A is to be granted only in respect of income of nature specified in s. 80HHC, which is included in gross total income of assessee. Admittedly, income out of export of goods by EHTP unit is not included in gross total income of assessee. income of such unit is totally exempt under s. 10A of Act. Sec. 80HHC(1) allows deduction of profit derived from business of export of goods or merchandise to which s. 80HHC applies. While computing deduction under s. 80HHC, as per sub-s. (3), sum is in respect of export of trading goods or manufactured goods to which this section applies. Similarly, words "export turnover" is defined which means sale proceeds of any goods or merchandise to which s. 80HHC applies. Admittedly, export turnover is of unit eligible for exemption under s. 10A. Thus, turnover of unit eligible for exemption under s. 10A doed not form part of turnover to which s. 80HHC applies. Thus, though it is true that assessee is not claiming deduction under s. 10A as well as under s. 80HHC in respect of same profit, yet it is clear that profit will arise only when there is turnover or sale of goods. Thus, turnover of unit exempt under s. 10A does not become export of goods to which s. 80HHC applies. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Escorts Ltd. (supra) held thus: "There is fundamental, though unwritten, axiom that no legislature could have at all intended double deduction in regard to same business outgoing; and, if it is intended, it will be clearly expressed. In other words, in absence of clear statutory indication to contrary, statute should not be read so as to permit assessee two deductions both under s. 10(2)(vi) and s. 10(2)(xiv) of 1922 Act or both under s. 32(1)(ii) and s. 35(1)(iv) of 1961 Act. use of words "in respect of same previous year" in cl. (d) of proviso to s. 10(2)(xiv) of 1922 Act and s. 35(2)(iv) of 1961 Act is to indicate that there is basic scheme, unspoken but clearly underlying Acts, that two allowances cannot be and are not intended to be granted in respect of same asset or expenditure. These provisions mandate that assessee should, in case where assessee qualifies for both allowances, be granted special allowance for scientific research and not routine annual one for depreciation". Hon ble Gauhati High Court in case of Sudarshan Plywood Industries Ltd. (supra) held thus: "The question of allowing deductions will arise only in case income is included in total income chargeable to income-tax and not otherwise. Sec. 5 itself begins with words, "subject to provisions of this Act, total income of any previous year........". Thus, total income, as generally it would mean under s. 5, shall be subject to other provisions of Act. Sec. 10 provides that in computing total income agricultural income shall not be included and would not form part of total income. language of s. 32AB makes it clear that it is subject to other provisions of that section and relates to assessee whose total income includes income chargeable to tax under head "Profits and gains of business or profession". It is out of such income that deductions are admissible. Secs. 10 and 32AB are mutually exclusive of each other for purposes of total income and s. 5 of Act is rendered neutral being subject to provisions of Act. There could not be situation where both provisions could be applied as s. 10 provides for non-inclusion of agricultural income in computing total income whereas s. 32AB applied where total income includes income chargeable to tax under head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Though above case laws are not directly on subject, it provides that identical amount cannot be claimed as deduction under two different sections unless specifically provided for. Since we have held that profits of export turnover of EHTP unit does not form part of gross total income, such turnover cannot be included while computing export turnover for purpose of computing deduction under s. 80HHC also. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 187 CTR (SC) 513: (2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC) held that s. 80AB governs s. 80HHC also. decision of Tribunal, Delhi Bench in Jindal Exports (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1989) 31 ITD 217 (Del) held that if assessee is eligible for deduction under s. 10A as well as s. 80HHC, it should be granted. We agree with same view. However, since profit of 10A unit and deduction under s. 80HHC is in sections. Sec. 80AB clearly provides that deduction under heading "Deduction in respect of certain income in Chapter VI-A shall be such sum, which is included in gross total income of assessee". In result, appeal is dismissed. *** VXL INSTRUMENTS LTD. v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX