JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Dilip B. Bhosale J.- These income-tax appeals under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), are directed against common order passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in I.T.A. Nos. 21 to 24/Hyd/2003 for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. This court, though admitted appeals on three substantial questions of law, learned counsel for appellants addressed only first. He did not address remaining two questions in view of fact that Writ Petition No. 21797 of 2009 filed by appellant is pending in this court for disposal. In writ petition, challenge is to order declining waiver of interest. question that falls for our consideration is as follows: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, sale proceeds of Rs. 27,98,289 obtained on sale of advance licences issued under Chapter VII of Import Export Policy for assessment year 1993-94, constituted income derived from industrial undertaking for calculating allowance under section 80-IA of Income-tax Act?" above substantial question of law is common in all appeals except amount of sale proceeds. amounts of sale proceeds in remaining three appeals are Rs. 33,91,871, Rs. 35,70,645 and Rs. 3,42,468, respectively. appellant-assessee is company registered under Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in business of manufacturing rubber moulded goods, such as rubber rings, and its sale. They filed return of income for assessment year 1993-94 declaring nil income after adjustment of deductions under section 80HHC and section 80-IA of Act. Subsequently, it was noticed that while computing total income, other income derived from sale of import (advance) licence (for short licence), export incentives and interests was not deducted from profits of assessee-company. In view thereof, it was noticed that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95 within meaning of section 147 of Act. Hence, notice under section 148 of Act was issued on February 13, 2001, to assessee- company. In response thereto, assessee-company filed revised return of income showing same income as disclosed in original return. Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal rejected claim of assessee-company holding that for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80-IA and for purpose of calculating relief under section 80HHC; (a) premium on sale of advance licences; (b) export incentive; and (c) interest income, cannot be treated as income derived from their business. In present appeals we are concerned only with "the premium on sale of licences". In short, all three authorities, viz., Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal answered question, as formulated in these appeals, against assessee-company holding that income earned by them from sale of licence cannot be considered as income derived from business of their industrial undertaking. From perusal of order of Tribunal it is clear that Tribunal based on judgment of Supreme Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) rejected claim of appellants and held that receipts from sale of licence cannot be included in income of assessee for purpose of relief under section 80-IA of Act. We have heard learned counsel for parties and with their assistance gone through order of Tribunal as well as orders passed by authorities below and judgment of Supreme Court in Sterling Foods (supra). We have also perused other materials placed before us including provisions contained in sections 80-IA and 80HH of Act prevailing in 1994- 95. Learned counsel for appellants after inviting our attention to provisions contained in sections 80-IA and 80HH of Act endeavoured to show difference between these provisions to demonstrate that judgment of Supreme Court in Sterling Foods (supra) based on provisions of section 80HH of Act is not applicable to facts of present case. He submitted that section 80-IA was different from section 80HH, in sense that under section 80-IA income derived from business of undertaking was admissible for deduction whereas under section 80HH deduction was allowable admissible for deduction whereas under section 80HH deduction was allowable to income derived from "an industrial undertaking" and not "business" of industrial undertaking. Hence, he submitted, provisions of section 80-IA were much wider in scope than section 80HH. According to learned counsel for appellants, section 80-IA was wider than section 80HH as Legislature intended to give benefit of deduction not only to profits derived from undertaking but also to give benefit of deduction in respect of incomes having direct nexus with profits of undertaking. Hence, he submitted all incomes that arose during course of running business would be eligible for deduction under section 80-IA, which, in present case would include income arising from sale of licence. He, therefore, submitted that law laid down by Supreme Court in Sterling Foods (supra) would not apply to facts of present case. He submitted, in view of delay in issuing licence, assessee-company had to procure raw material from open market which included duty paid thereon, and to recover same assessee-company had no option but to sell licence in open market. He submitted that sale of licence has direct nexus/connection with business of assessee-company, and therefore, they are entitled for deduction under section 80-IA of Act. He further submitted that purchase of raw materials is part of business of undertaking and so also sale of licence, and, therefore, it would fall within first degree of proximity. On other hand, learned counsel for Revenue in support of judgment of Tribunal, in addition to Sterling Foods (supra), placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC) to contend that sale of licence has absolutely no connection with business of assessee-company. He submitted that for application of words "derived from" there must be direct nexus between profit and business of undertaking. He submitted merely because under scheme to encourage export, income derived from sale of licence cannot be regarded as profit derived from business of undertaking. In other words, he submitted that sale of licence by assessee-company did not have either direct or indirect connection with their business, and, therefore, authorities below have rightly rejected their claim. In Sterling Foods (supra) assessee was engaged in processing prawns and other sea foods, which it exported. It also earned some import entitlements granted by Central Government under Export Promotion Scheme. assessee was entitled to use import entitlements itself or sell same to others. It sold import entitlements that it had earned to others. Its total income for assessment year 1979-80 included sale proceeds for such import entitlements and it claimed relief under section 80HH of Act in respect of sale proceeds of import entitlements. Tribunal held that relief could not be granted. High Court, in that case, held that income which assessee made by selling import entitlements was not profit or gain which it had derived from its industrial undertaking, on reference for relevant assessment year in favour of assessee. question that was framed by Supreme Court in Sterling Foods (supra) was "whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that receipt from sale of import entitlements could not be included in income of assessee for purpose of computing relief under section 80HH of Income-tax Act, 1961?" After noticing provisions contained in section 80HH of Act and while dealing with submissions of learned counsel for assessee that profits and gains were derived from assessee's industrial undertakings, and, therefore, they were entitled to deduction prescribed under said provision, Supreme Court in paragraph twelve observed thus (page 584): "We do not think that source of import entitlements can be said to be industrial undertaking of assessee. source of import entitlements can, in circumstances, only be said to be Export Promotion Scheme of Central Government whereunder export entitlements become available. There must be, for application of words'derived from', direct nexus between profits and gains and industrial undertaking. In instant case, nexus is not direct but only incidental. industrial undertaking exports processed sea food. By reason of such export, Export Promotion Scheme applies. Thereunder, assessee is entitled to import entitlements, which it can sell. sale consideration therefrom cannot, in our view, be held to constitute profit and gain derived from assessees industrial undertaking." (emphasis supplied) In Liberty India (supra) Supreme Court, while dealing with similar submissions, as urged in instant case, based on provisions contained in sections 80-IB and 80-IA, held thus (page 232): "Before analysing section 80-IB, as prefatory note, it needs to be mentioned that 1961 Act broadly provides for two types of tax incentives, namely, investment-linked incentives and profit-linked incentives. Chapter VI-A which provides for incentives in form of tax deductions essentially belong to category of profit-linked incentives. Therefore, when section 80-IA/80-IB refers to profits derived from eligible business, it is not ownership of that business which attracts incentives. What attracts incentives under section 80-IA/80-IB is generation of profits (operational profits)... Analysing Chapter VI-A, we find that section 80-IB/80-IA are code by themselves as they contain both substantive as well as procedural provisions. Therefore, we need to examine what these provisions prescribe for computation of profits of eligible business. It is evident that section 80-IB provides for allowing of deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from eligible business. words'derived from' are narrower in connotation as compared to words attributable to. In other words, by using expression'derived from', Parliament intended to cover sources not beyond first degree." (emphasis1 supplied) Sections 80-IA and 80-IB, as they stand today, were substituted for section 80-IA by Finance Act, 1999, with effect from April 1, 2000. Prior to its substitution, section 80-IA was amended almost every year. In present case, we are concerned with assessment years 1993-94 to 199697. Though there were amendments by Finance Act, 1992, with effect from April 1, 1993, Finance Act, 1993, with effect from April 1, 1994, Finance Act, 1994, with effect from April 1, 1995, Finance Act, 1995, with effect from April 1, 1996, for addressing substantial question of law involved, provisions contained in section 80-IA, as it stood in 199394 are relevant for our purpose. In other words, amendments in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 in so far as sub-section (1) of section 80-IA is concerned, would not have any effect on consideration of question raised in these appeals. relevant sub-section (1) of section 80-IA was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991. Similarly, it would be relevant to reproduce provision of section 80HH, as it stood in 1993-94, though we are not directly concerned with, to understand judgment of Supreme Court in Sterling Foods (supra), which was strongly relied upon by Tribunal for answering question in favour of Revenue and against assessee. Sections 80-IA and 80-HH, so far as they are relevant, read at relevant times thus: "80-IA.(1) Where gross total income of assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business of industrial undertaking or hotel or operation of ship (such business being hereinafter referred to as eligible business), 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 percentage specified in sub-section (5) and for such number of assessment years as is specified in sub-section (6). 80HH.(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." Analysing Chapter VI-A of Act, we find that section 80-IA is code by itself as it contained both substantive as well as procedural provisions. To analyse provision of section 80-IA, so far as it is relevant here, if gross total income of assessee includes "any profits and gains derived from any business of industrial undertaking", assessee is entitled to be allowed, in computation of his total income, deduction from profits and gains derived from "any business of industrial undertaking" of amount equal to 25 per cent. thereof. In so far as section 80HH, as it is relevant here, is concerned, if gross total income of assessee includes any profits and gains derived from "industrial undertaking", assessee is entitled to be allowed, in computation of his total income, deduction from profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking of amount equal to 20 per cent. thereof. Thus, from perusal of these provisions, distinction is clear so far as it is relevant here. Section 80-IA provides that gross total income of assessee would include any profits and gains derived from "any business of industrial undertaking" and not from "industrial undertaking" as provided for in section 80HH. In our opinion, gross total income of assessee, so far as section 80-IA is concerned, means any profits and gains derived from any "business" of industrial undertaking. By making slight change in language, Legislature, as matter of fact, has widened scope of section 80-IA than section 80HH but while reading expression gross income derived from any business, in our opinion, cannot be read to mean and include "the income" having no nexus with business of undertaking or income that cannot be "attributable to" business of undertaking. There must be, for application of words "derived from", direct nexus between profits and gains and business of industrial undertaking. In instant case, profit derived from sale of licence could be, at most treated as incidental and not direct. Section 80-IA refers to profits and gains derived from "any business" of industrial undertaking. words "derived from" are narrower in connotation as compared to words "attributable to". In other words, by using expression "derived from", Legislature intended to cover sources not beyond first degree. Legislature has not used expression "attributable to" in section 80-IA. expression "attributable to" is of wider import and Legislature use such expression when it intended to cover receipts from sources other than actual conduct of business. Therefore, in our opinion, expression "derived from any business of industrial undertaking" will have to be read to mean gross total income of assessee derived from business of industrial undertaking. In present case, it is not case of assessee that sale of licence is their business. If assessee has derived any profits/gains from sale of licence, it at most could be treated derived any profits/gains from sale of licence, it at most could be treated as income from sources other than actual conduct of business and same, in any case, cannot be treated as part of gross total income from their business of manufacturing rubber moulded goods such as rubber rings and sale of same. submission that sale of licence has direct nexus/connection with business of undertaking must be rejected. Merely because licence was obtained for procuring raw material for manufacturing finished products for its exports, does not mean that sale of advance licence has nexus with business of manufacturing and sale of finished product. In result, we find no merit in appeals. appeals are accordingly dismissed. substantial question of law is, accordingly, answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee-company. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in appeals, if any, also stand disposed of. *** Deccan Industrial Products v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax