JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by L. Narasimha Reddy J.-It is too well known that Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), provides for levy of tax on what is known as "total income" as defined under section 10 read with section 5 of Act. It takes in its fold various categories of incomes of assessee. One of important steps to be taken under Act in computing total income is identification of deductions that are permitted and provided for under Chapters VI and VI-A. While Chapter VI provides for setting off or carry forward of amounts under different heads, Chapter VI-A provides for deduction of certain amounts from general income of assessee on one hand, and deduction of certain amounts in respect of incomes of specified category on other hand. For example, section 80CCA provides for deduction in respect of deposits under National Savings Scheme or payment to deferred annuity plan, section 80CCB provides for deduction in respect of investments made under equity linked savings scheme. Section 80G is in respect of donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc., from general income of assessee. Deductions in respect of specific incomes are covered by Part C of Chapter VI-A. Such deductions are to be made only from income of particular source. For example, if assessee establishes industrial undertaking or hotel business in backward areas, he is entitled to make deduction to extent of 20 per cent. from profits and gains, under section 80HH. Similarly, where assessee establishes small scale industries in certain areas, section 80HHA provides for identical deduction. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from projects outside India which earn foreign exchange is provided for under section 80HHB. Certain complications do arise when assessee is entitled to deductions under more than one provision, more so, when they fall within heading "C" of Chapter VI-A. controversy would be as to whether deduction must be confined to source of income of that particular category or it can be from combined income from different sources referable to different sections. respondent herein is assessee under Act. For assessment year 1993-94, it posted incomes from various sources including those referable to sections 80HH and 80-I of Act. In return, it sought to claim deductions from incomes covered by respective sections, separately. While in respect of one source of income it incurred losses, in respect of others it earned profits. deductions sought to be made by assessee were from activity that yielded profits. Assessing Officer, however, insisted that deductions must be from combined income from both categories. That in turn had virtually neutralised income derived from one source, by loss incurred in other source. Hence, occasion to make any deduction did not exist. Aggrieved by order of assessment passed by Assessing Officer, respondent filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Hyderabad. appeal was allowed through order dated January 31, 1997, applying ratio in judgments of Supreme Court in CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 320 (SC) and H. H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 433 (SC). Feeling aggrieved by order of Commissioner, Revenue filed ITA No. 706/Hyd/1997 before Hyderabad Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"). Tribunal dismissed appeal through order dated January 31, 2002. Hence, this further appeal under section 260A of Act by Revenue. following questions are raised in appeal: "(A) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in holding that assessee is entitled to claim deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I, independent of set off and carry forward provisions? (B) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal is correct in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in holding that deduction under section 80HH and section 80-I can be claimed with respect to each unit, separately?" Sri S. R. Ashok, learned senior counsel for appellant, submits that Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal did not take into account purport of expression "gross total income" as defined under section 80B(5) of Act and adjudication undertaken by them runs contrary to said provision. He contends that once assessee has income from any sources covered by Chapter VI-A, first step must be to aggregate all incomes and thereby arrive at "gross total income" and then to effect deductions if permissible. According to learned senior counsel, assessee cannot be permitted to effect deductions separately from any item or head of income which forms part of heading "C". He has placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (Income-tax) [2008] 299 ITR 444 (SC) and IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC). Learned senior counsel further submits that judgment of Supreme Court in Canara Workshops' case (supra) was delivered at time when section 80B(5) was not on statute book and that same has no application to facts of case. Ms. K. Mamata Chowdary, learned counsel for respondent, on other hand, submits that basis on which Assessing Officer refused deduction as claimed by assessee is contrary to law and that Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal have taken correct view of matter. She contends that each head or item of income covered by respective provisions in heading "C" of Chapter VI-A has its own significance and Parliament itself wanted to restrict deductions at stipulated percentage, from that very item of income and not from any other income. She contends that though section 80B(5) was not in existence when Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Canara Workshops' case (supra) basic concept was discussed thread bare and ratio laid down therein was not disturbed in any subsequent judgments. According to learned counsel, judgment of Supreme Court in Synco Industries' case (supra) rendered in year 2008 did not take into account, its own judgment in Canara Workshops' case (supra) decided in year 1986. She contends that principle of stare decisis mandates that if there are conflicting judgments rendered by Benches of same strength on particular principle, one earlier in point of time deserves to be taken into account. She has placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra [2014] AIR 2014 SC 1745. Reliance is also placed upon Division Bench judgment of this court in CIT v. Visakha Industries Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 471 (AP). It is not in dispute that respondent became entitled to claim deductions under section 80HH of Act on one hand and section 80-I on other hand. entire controversy is as to whether deductions under respective provisions must be made from respective incomes of concerned sources or aggregate of both. subsidiary to this would be, as to whether deductions must be effected after carry forward loss is set off from profits, if any, or whether such setting off must be after deductions are effected. On both counts, Assessing Officer held against respondent. It has already been mentioned that respondent earned profits from activity covered by Chapter VI-A and incurred losses in another activity covered by that very Chapter. Tribunal took into account judgment of Supreme Court in Canara Workshops' case (supra). In that case, facts were: assessee-company established factory for manufacture of automobiles and spares. It has also established factory for manufacture of alloy steels. matter arose in respect of assessing year 1966-67, by which time Chapter VI-A was not enacted. Section 80E (as it stood then) provided for deduction to extent of 8 per cent. of profits and gains, if assessee is involved in manufacture or production of articles or things specified in Fifth Schedule, appended to Act. articles manufactured by assessee in both factories figured in Fifth Schedule. While in one industry assessee earned profits, in other industry, it suffered losses. In context of effecting deductions provided for under section 80E of Act (as it stood then), while assessee pleaded that deduction must be from income of concerned industry, Assessing Officer insisted on clubbing of incomes from both sources and then making of deductions. Dealing with this aspect, Supreme Court held (page 324 of 161 ITR): "The assessee in this case carries on two industries, both of which find place in list in Fifth Schedule and can, therefore, be described as priority industries. It is urged by learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for Revenue, that on true application of section 80E, profit in industry of automobile ancillaries must be reduced by loss suffered in manufacture of alloy steel, and reference has been made to number of cases to which we shall presently refer. After giving matter careful consideration we do not find it possible to accept contention. It seems to us that object in enacting section 80E is properly served only by confining application of provisions of that section to profits and gains of single industry. deduction of eight per cent. is intended to be index of recognition, that priority industry has been set up and is functioning efficiently. It was never intended that merit earned by such industry should be lost or diminished because of loss suffered by some other industry. It makes no difference that other industry is also priority industry. coexistence of two industries in common ownership was not intended by Parliament to result in misfortune of one being visited on other. legislative intention was to give to meritorious its full reward. To construe section 80E to mean that you must determine net result of all priority industries and then apply benefit of deduction to figure so obtained will be, in our opinion, to undermine object of section. example will illustrate this. industry entitled to benefit of section 80E could have its profits wholly wiped out on adjustment against heavy loss suffered by another industry, and thus be totally denied relief which should have been its due by virtue of its profits. In our opinion, each industry must be considered on its own working only when adjudging its title to deduction under section 80E. It cannot be allowed to suffer because it keeps company with some other industry in hands of assessee. To determine benefit under section 80E on basis of net result of all industries owned by assessee would be, moreover, to shift focus from industry to assessee. We hold that in application of section 80E, profits and gains earned by industry mentioned in that section cannot be reduced by loss suffered by any other industry or industries owned by assessee. (emphasis supplied)" Similar factual situation obtains in case on hand. It is no doubt true that present case is governed by Chapter VI-A of Act. fact, however, remains that Chapter VI-A, for most part of it, is exercise of consolidation than introduction of total new phenomenon. Except that items that qualified for deduction were extended and extent of deduction was varied, concept and mechanism remained same. Barring rearrangement of section that provide for deductions, same concept came to be introduced through Finance Act, 1967, which added Chapter VI-A to Act. improvement is mostly method of deduction under Chapter, in form of section 80AB and concept of gross total income under section 80B(5). relevant provisions, as they stand now, read as under: "80AB. Deductions to be made with reference to income included in gross total income.-Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section included in this Chapter under heading'C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes' in respect of any income of nature specified in that section which is included in gross total income of assessee, then, notwithstanding anything contained in that section, for purpose of computing deduction under that section, amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance with provisions of Act (before making any deduction under this Chapter) shall alone be deemed to be amount of income of that nature which is derived or received by assessee and which is included in his gross total income. 80B. In this Chapter- '(5) gross total income' means total income computed in accordance with provisions of this Act, before making any deduction under this Chapter." basis of argument of learned senior counsel for Revenue is that deductions provided for under Chapter VI-A can be made only from aggregate of incomes from various sources covered by relevant provisions of Chapter. Expanding further, he pleaded that it is only after income or loss, as case may be, from various sources are clubbed together, that deductions can be made. Incidentally, though Assessing Officer also referred to definition of gross total income under section 80B(5), his understanding of gross total income was, income under various heads as per Chapter IV plus income includible whenever necessary as per Chapter V minus set off of current year losses or brought forward losses, etc. It was opined that deduction under Chapter VI-A can be made only in respect of such gross total income. He has also referred to section 80AB in support of his view. deductions claimed by respondent are under section 80HH on one hand and section 80-I on other hand. Both provisions occur in heading C of Chapter VI-A. Section 80AB deals with deductions of that nature. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether section 80AB is suggestive of any mechanism for clubbing of incomes of various sources covered by heading C. close perusal of section 80AB extracted above, discloses that, for purpose of deduction under particular section, it is only income of nature provided for only under that section, which shall be deemed to be income derived or received by assessee. provision does not mandate clubbing of incomes from different sources. definition of gross total income under section 80B(5) just indicates as to what it constitutes. total income computed in accordance with provisions of Act before any deductions under Chapter VI-A are made is gross total income. provision does not go further and insist that deduction under respective provisions must be from gross total income. method of deduction is ultimately to be decided by text of respective provisions. Further, section 80B(5) is not charging provision. It is important to mention that Parliament itself employed expressions "gross total income" at some places and "total income" at other places, in different provisions, depending upon context. For example, under section 80HHD which also occurs under heading C in Chapter VI-A, there is no mention of "gross total income", whereas in sections 80HH, 80HHA and 80-I, expression "gross total income" is employed. purpose appears to be to ensure that deductions provided for under relevant sections are made in computing "total income" of assessee, in contradistinction to "gross total income". For example, sub-section (1) of section 80HH reads as under: "80HH. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings or hotel business in backward areas.-(1) Where gross total income of assessee includes any profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking, or business of hotel, to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing total income of assessee, deduction from such profits and gains of amount equal to twenty per cent. thereof." Similarly, section 80-I(1) reads: "80-I. (1) Where gross total income of assessee includes any profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking or ship or business of hotel or business of repairs to ocean-going vessels or other powered craft, to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing total income of assessee, deduction from such profits and gains of amount equal to twenty per cent. thereof: Provided that in case of assessee, being company, provisions of this sub-section shall have effect in relation to profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking or ship or business of hotel as if for words'twenty per cent.', words'twenty-five per cent.' had been substituted." Obviously, because there is possibility to understand provisions in different manner, Parliament proceeded to add sub-section (6) of section 80-I which reads: "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, profits and gains of industrial undertaking or ship or business of hotel or business of repairs to ocean-going vessels or other powered craft to which provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for purposes of determining quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) for assessment year immediately succeeding initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such industrial undertaking or ship or business of hotel or business of repairs to ocean-going vessels or other powered craft were only source of income of assessee during previous years relevant to initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year up to and including assessment year for which determination is to be made." underlined portion becomes relevant. (italicised) If these two provisions are kept in mind, it emerges that intention of section 80AB is to maintain distinction between respective sources of income, referable to sections contained in heading C of Chapter VI-A. intention appears to be to discourage or to prevent assessee from avoiding tax by posting profits earned in one industry, against losses incurred in other. Another way of looking at provision is that, hard work put by entrepreneur resulting in profits in industry cannot be wiped away if he suffered losses in another industry of same category. Except that provisions are different, principle laid down by hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Workshops' case (supra) is same. This decision was followed by our High Court in Visakha Industries' case (supra). It is no doubt true that Supreme Court in Synco Industries' case (supra) took different view. Firstly, said judgment was not in existence when Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal decided present case. Secondly, no reference was made to judgment in Canara Workshops' case (supra) in Synco Industries' case (supra), obviously, because it was not brought to their Lordships notice. It is quite possible to argue that relevant provisions, which hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing in those two cases are different. However, principle involved in both, was broadly, same. In Synco Industries' case (supra), Supreme Court laid much emphasis upon definition of gross total income under section 80B(5) and section 80AB. It was observed that if gross total income of assessee is determined as nil, there is no question of deduction being allowed under Chapter VI-A in computing total income. For this purpose, several judgments rendered by various High Courts were taken note of. Be that as it may, this court, as of now is faced with two precedents which cover same factual background and similar legal, principles. Since both precedents are from hon'ble Supreme Court, they are equally binding upon this court. only exercise that is to be undertaken is, to choose one of them, as per settled principles of law. In process, it cannot be construed, even remotely, that any disrespect whatever, is shown to other precedent. exercise undertaken in this behalf may at future point of time persuade hon'ble Supreme Court to say more authoritative word, in this context. law in relation to stare decisis is fairly well settled. situations which crop up are, where view taken contrary to what was decided earlier by Bench of same strength on account of disinclination or failure on part of counsel to bring to notice of court precedents that already existed. In Sundeep Kumar Bafna's case (supra), Supreme Court dealt with this aspect in detail under heading "rule of precedent and per incuriam". Situations where High Courts are faced with two judgments of Supreme Court rendered by Benches of same strength on particular principle, expressing different views was taken note of. Their Lordships held: "It is often encountered in High Courts that two or more mutually irreconcilable decisions of Supreme Court are cited at Bar. We think that inviolable recourse is to apply earliest view as succeeding ones would fall in category of per incuriam." Though we do not intend to express view that judgments of Supreme Court in Canara Workshops' case (supra) on one hand and Synco Industries' case (supra) on other hand are not reconcilable, we prefer to follow earlier one since it spelt out principle, in detail. This, we do even while expressing our unflinching respect to ratio in Synco Industries' case (supra). We also make it clear that we would have straightaway followed judgment in Synco Industries' case (supra) had there been at least passing reference to judgment in Canara Workshops' case (supra). We, therefore, dismiss appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Premier Explosive Ltd