JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by A. K. Sikri J.-What is correct method of computation of deduction under section 80HHC(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961, in given facts and circumstances, is question which needs answer in present appeal. given facts and circumstances, as they appear on record, are stated in summary form hereinbelow: Finance Act of 1983 introduced section 80HHC of Income-tax Act providing incentives to exporters and deduction for persons involved in export business. Section 80HHC(3)(b) provided formula for computation of deduction for persons who do not have business exclusively of export out of India, that is to say, in cases where assessee is having turnover and income from business in India as well as from export business. For sake of convenience, relevant portions of section 80HHC are extracted hereinbelow: "80HHC. Deduction in respect of profits retained for export business.-(1) Where assessee, being Indian company or person (other than company) resident in India, is engaged in business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise 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 of profits derived by assessee from export of such goods or merchandise: Provided that if assessee, being holder of Export House Certificate or Trading House Certificate (hereafter in this section referred to as Export House or Trading House, as case may be), issues certificate referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4A), that in respect of amount of export turnover specified therein, deduction under this sub- section is to be allowed to supporting manufacturer, then amount of deduction in case of assessee shall be reduced by such amount which bears to total profits of export business of assessee same proportion as amount of export turnover specified in said certificate bears to total export turnover of assessee... (3) For purposes of sub-section (1), profits derived from export of goods or merchandise out of India shall be,- (a) in case where business carried on by assessee consists exclusively of export out of India of goods or merchandise to which this section applies, profits of business as computed under head'Profits and gains of business or profession'; (b) in case where business carried on by assessee does not consist exclusively of export out of India of goods or merchandise to which this section applies, amount which bears to profits of business (as computed under head'Profits and gains of business or profession') same proportion as export turnover bears to total turnover of business carried on by assessee." On July 5, 1990, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued Circular No. 564, dated July 5, 1990 (see [1990] 184 ITR (St.) 137), giving detailed guidelines as to how deductions under section 80HHC are to be calculated. formula prescribed by Central Board of Direct Taxes circular is as follows: Export turnover Profit of business x Total turnover appellant company is engaged in business of export of marine products and also financial consultancy and trading in equity shares. Its total business does not consist purely of exports but includes business within country as well which situation is covered by section 80HHC(3)(b), noted hereinabove. Assessing Officer, while dealing with assessments of appellant in respect of assessment year 1989-90, took view that deduction was not allowable on ground that there is no relationship between assessee-company and processors. appellant carried said order in appeal. appeal against assessment order was dismissed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Madras, vide order dated August 17, 1991. appellant filed appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. By its judgment dated April 24, 1992, Appellate Tribunal set aside order of Assessing Officer and came to conclusion that appellant was entitled to full relief under section 80HHC and directed Assessing Officer to grant relief to assessee. On remand, Assessing Officer passed fresh order dated May 28, 1992, giving effect to orders of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. While giving effect, Assessing Officer found that appellant had not earned any profits from export of marine products and in fact, from said export business, it had suffered loss. Therefore, according to Assessing Officer, as per section 80AB, deduction under section 80HHC could not exceed amount of income included in total income. He found that as income from export of marine product business was in negative, i.e., there was loss, deduction under section 80HHC would be nil, even when assessee is entitled to deduction under said provision. With this order, second round of litigation started. assessee challenged order passed by Assessing Officer before Commissioner (Appeals) contending that formula which was applied by Assessing Officer was different from formula prescribed under section 80HHC of Act and it was also in direct violation of Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular dated July 5, 1990. Commissioner (Appeals), however, dismissed appeal of assessee principally on ground that under section 246 of Income-tax Act, order of Assessing Officer giving effect to order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not appealable order. assessee approached Income-tax Appellate Tribunal questioning validity of orders passed by Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals). However, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also dismissed appeal of assessee, vide its order dated March 31, 1993, and upheld order of Assessing Officer. Challenging order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, assessee approached High Court under section 256(2) of Act seeking reference to it. Order dated February 3, 1994, was passed by Act seeking reference to it. Order dated February 3, 1994, was passed by High Court directing Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to frame reference and place same before High Court. On this direction of High Court, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred following question to High Court: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction admissible to assessee under section 80HHC is nil?" High Court has now pronounced on aforesaid question referred to it by impugned judgment dated August 20, 2002, answering this question against assessee holding as under: "5. In this case, assessment admittedly had not earned any profits from export of marine products. On other hand, it had suffered loss. deduction permissible under section 80HHC is only deduction of profits of assessee from export of goods or merchandise. By very terms of section 80HHC, it is clear that assessee was not entitled to any benefit thereunder in absence of any profits. question referred to us, therefore, is answered against assessee and in favour of Revenue." Special leave petition was filed against judgment of High Court in which leave was granted on November 10, 2003. This is how appeal has come up for hearing. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel appearing for assessee, submitted that aforesaid reasoning of High Court is palpably wrong in holding that when there are losses suffered in export business, no deduction under section 80HHC is permissible. According to him, while forming this opinion High Court looked into sub-section (1) of section 80HHC alone as is clear from order of High Court and did not take into consideration provisions of sub-section (3) thereof. His submission was that no doubt, this court in case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy CIT held that benefit of section 80HHC shall not be given in cases where there was loss. He, however, pointed out that judgment in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. (supra) was explained and clarified subsequently by this court in A. M. Moosa v. CIT wherein it was made clear that in See page 251 of 259 ITR. [2004] 12 SCC 742; [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC). [2007] 9 SCR 831; [2007] 294 ITR 1 (SC). arriving at profits earned from export of both self-manufactured goods and trading goods, profits and losses in both trades have to be taken into consideration. If after such adjustments there is positive profit, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80HHC(1) and if there is loss, he will not be entitled to any deduction. He, thus, submitted that term "profit of business" would not confine to profit from export business but income both from export business as well as from domestic business, had to be taken into consideration. Therefore, even if there was loss from export business but there was profit from business done within country and on adjustment of loss from export business against profits from business in India, in balance-sheet, it was still profit resulting into positive income, benefit of section 80HHC was admissible. He further argued that objective behind section 80HHC was to give incentive to those export houses who were earning foreign exchange. Even if there was loss from export business, assessee had earned foreign exchange and once it was found that overall there were profits, following formula contained in section 80HHC became applicable: Export turnover Profit of business x Total turnover He also referred to "provisions relating to direct taxes" stated in Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1991, presented in Budget of 1991-92 and referred to provisions contained therein which relates to incentives for earning foreign exchange. It makes following reading : "20. Under existing provisions of section 80HHC of Income-tax Act, exporters are allowed. In computation of their total income, deduction of entire profits derived from export of goods or merchandise other than mineral oil, minerals and ores. deduction is subject to condition that sale proceeds of such goods or merchandise are received in, or brought into, India in convertible foreign exchange. In view of fact that significant value addition is achieved when mineral is processed or when stone is cut and polished, it is desirable to encourage their export. It is, therefore, proposed to extend benefit of deduction under section 80HHC to exporters of processed minerals. list of processed minerals, in respect of which this concession is being extended, is being provided in new schedule to Income-tax Act. Se e [1991] 190 ITR (St.) 126, 280. proposed amendment will take effect from 1st day of April, 1991 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 1991-92 and subsequent years." Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing for Revenue, on other hand, supported view taken by High Court. He also specifically referred to conclusion arrived at by Tribunal in support of his plea that in instance case, formula sought to be involved would not apply. He pointed out that in present case, there was no income from indigenous business but it was only in form of brokerage, dividend, interest, etc., which, in no case, be described as "turnover" and be part of "total turnover". He referred to same document, viz., "Provisions relating to direct taxes" where following clarification also appears: "It is, therefore, proposed to clarify that'profits of business' for purpose of section 80HHC will not include receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of similar nature. As some expenditure might be incurred in earning these incomes, which in generality of cases is part of common expenses, it is proposed to provide ad hoc 10 per cent. deduction from such incomes to account for these expenses." We have considered submissions of counsel appearing on both sides. There are two facets of this case which need to be looked into. In first instance, we have to consider as to whether view of High Court that deduction is permissible under section 80HHC only when there are profits from exports of goods or merchandise is correct or it would be open to assessee to club income from export business as well as domestic business and even if there are losses in export business but after setting off those losses against income/profits from business in India, still there is net profit of business, benefit under section 80HHC will be available? second question would arise is as to whether formula applied by fora below is correct? In other words, while applying formula, we have to see what would comprise "total turnover"? Before we provide answer to first question, it would be appropriate to take note of judgments in IPCA Laboratory as well as A. M. Moosa. In IPCA Laboratory, appellant was holder of export house certificate issued by CCI & E. It exported self-manufactured goods as well as goods manufactured by supporting manufacturers, i.e., trading goods. In S ee page 300 of 190 ITR (St.). previous year relevant to assessment year 1996-97 its taxable income, before deductions under Chapter VI-A, Income-tax Act, was Rs. 4.39 crores. It had earned profit of Rs. 3.78 crores from export of self-manufactured goods. However, from exports of trading goods there was loss of Rs. 6.86 crores. appellant issued certificates of disclaimer in favour of supporting manufacturers in respect of entire export of trading goods. In its return for assessment year 1996-97, it claimed deduction under section 80HHC, Income-tax Act, in sum of Rs. 3.78 crores. But holding that there was net loss from export of goods, Assessing Officer disallowed deduction. This order of Assessing Officer was unsuccessfully challenged by appellant as all authorities up to High Court upheld that order. This court also, in aforesaid judgment, concurred with view taken by courts below. Before this court, specific reliance was placed on sub-section (3) of section 80HHC and on that basis, it was contended that in case where assessee exported goods manufactured by himself as well as trading goods, profits from two types of exports were to be considered separately and profit in respect of one could not be negated or set off against loss from other. It was pleaded that when main set off against loss from other. It was pleaded that when main purpose behind that section was to given incentive for earning for exchange, section must be given interpretation which would further that object. It was also argued that expression "profit" occurring under section 80HHC(1), so also in section 80HHC(3), should be construed to mean positive profit and, therefore, in section 80HHC(3)(c) it would not include losses and if there were any losses, they were to be ignored. Another submission was that even when profits were to be reduced by losses, in cases of disclaimer of its turnover by assessee export house in favour of supporting manufacturer, turnover of export house got reduced to that extent. Therefore, it could not be taken into consideration for purposes of computing profits under section 80HHC(3)(c)(ii). Reliance was also placed on Circular No. 421, dated June 12, 1985, of Central Board of Direct Taxes to show that section 80HHC was incorporated with view to providing incentives to its exporters with requisite resources of modernisation, technological upgradation, product development and other activities. None of aforesaid arguments weighed with this court. While dismissing appeal of appellant, court laid down following law: "Although section 80HHC has been incorporated with view to provide incentive to export houses and liberal interpretation has to be given to such provision, interpretation has to be as per See [1985] 156 ITR (St.) 130. wordings of that section. When Legislature wanted to take exports from self-manufactured goods or trading goods separately, it has already so provided in sub-sections (3)(a) and (3)(b). word 'profit' in section 80HHC(1) and sections 80HHC(3)(a) and (b) means positive profit. In other words, if there is loss then no deduction would be available under section 80HHC(1) or (3)(a) or (3)(b). In arriving at figure of positive profit, both profits and losses will have to be considered. If net figure is loss then assessee will not be entitled to deduction. opening words'profit derived from such exports' occurring in section 80HHC(3) together with work'and' occurring between clauses (i) and (ii) thereof clearly indicate that profits have to be calculated by counting both exports. Under section 80HHC(1), deduction is to be given in computing total income of assessee. In computing total income of assessee both profits as well as losses will have to be taken into consideration. Sections 80AB and 80B(5) are relevant. Section 80AB has been given overriding effect over all other sections in Chapter VI-A. Section 80HHC would thus be governed by section 80AB which makes it clear that computation of income has to be in accordance with provisions of Act. Moreover, even under section 80HHC(3)(c)(i) profit is to be adjusted profit of business which means profit as reduced by profit derived from business of exports out of India of trading goods. Thus, in calculating profits, under sub-section (3)(c)(i), one necessarily has to reduce profits under sub- section (3)(c)(ii). Section 80HHC makes it clear that in arriving at profits earned from export of both self-manufactured goods and trading goods, profits and losses in both trades have to be taken into consideration. If after such adjustments there is positive profit assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80HHC(i). If there is loss he will not be entitled to any deduction. In section 80HHC, word'profit' is admittedly used to indicate positive'profit' because deduction will only be of positive profit. Section 80HHC(3) provides how profits are to be worked out in computing total income. For purposes of such computation both profits and losses have to be taken into account. Thus, word 'profit' in section 80HHC(3) will mean profits after taking into account losses, if any. term'profit' in both sections 80HHC(1) and 80HHC(3) means positive profit worked out after taking into consideration losses, if any. Thus, word'profit' has same meaning in sections 80HHC(1) and (3). proviso to sub-section (1) of section 80HHC enables disclaimer only to enable export house to pass on deductions. It in no way reduces turnover of export house. disclaimer is only for purposes of enabling export house to pass on deduction which it would have got to supporting manufacturer. It follows that if no deduction is available because there is loss then export house cannot pass on or give credit of such non-existing deduction to supporting manufacturer. Board circular also shows that only positive profits can be considered for purposes of deduction." We find that in A. M. Moosa, this court, in fact, reiterated IPCA principles, as noted above. That was case where Assessing Officer had disallowed deduction claim of assessee under section 80HHC of Act on ground that "profits of business computed under section 80HHC indicated negative figure". This view was accepted by all courts and affirmed by this court in aforesaid judgment. Before this court, submission of appellant-assessee was that reading of section 80HHC would show that where assessee exports goods manufactured by him, he would be covered by sub-section (3)(a) and only profits of such business would be taken into account. Where assessee exports only trading goods other than profits of these goods only would be taken into account of sub-section (3)(b). It was submitted that sub-section (3)(c) dealt with case where assessee exported goods manufactured by him as well as trading goods. In such case, profits from export of goods manufactured by assessee were to be considered separately and profits from export of trading goods were to be considered separately. If there were profits only in respect of one type of exports then this profit could not be negatived or set off from loss from other export. This contention was, obviously, not accepted and brushed aside in following manner: "The stand needs careful consideration. Undoubtedly, section 80HHC has been incorporated with view to providing incentive to export houses. Even though liberal interpretation has to be given to such provision, interpretation has to be as per wording of this section. If wording of section is clear, then benefits which are not available under section cannot be conferred by ignoring or misinterpreting words in section. In this case, we are page 7 of 294 ITR. concerned with wording of sub-section (3)(c) of section 80HHC. As noted earlier, sub-section (3)(a) deals with case where export is only of self-manufactured goods. Sub-section (3)(b) deals with case where export is only of trading goods. Thus, when Legislature wanted to take exports from self-manufactured goods or trading goods separately, it has already so provided in sub-section (3)(a) and (3)(b). It would not be denied that word'profit' in section 80HHC(1) and section 80HHC(3)(a) or (3)(b) means positive profit. In other words, if there is loss then no deduction would be available under section 80HHC(1) or (3)(a) or (3)(b). In arriving at figure of positive profit, both profits and losses will have to be considered. If net figure is positive profit, then assessee will be entitled to deduction. If net figure is loss then assessee will not be entitled to deduction. Sub-section (3)(c) deals with cases where export is of both self-manufactured goods as well as trading goods. opening part of sub- section (3)(c) states'profits derived from such export shall'. Then follow sub- clauses (i) and (ii). Between sub-clauses (i) and (ii) word'and' appears. plain reading of sub-section (3)(c) shows that'profits from such exports' has to be profits from exports of self-manufactured goods plus profits from exports of trading goods. profit is to be calculated in manner laid down in sub- sections (3)(c)(i) and (ii). opening words'profit derived from such exports' together with word'and' clearly indicate that profits have to be calculated by counting both exports. It is clear from reading of sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 80HHC that deduction can be permitted only if there is positive profit in exports of both self-manufactured goods as well as trading goods. If there is loss in either of two then that loss has to be taken into account for purposes of computing profits. Under section 80HHC(1), deduction is to be given in computing total income of assessee. In computing total income of assessee both profits as well as losses will have to be taken into consideration. Section 80AB is relevant. It reads as follows: '80AB. 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 this 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.' (emphasis in original) Section 80B(5) is also relevant. Section 80B(5) provides that'gross total income' means total income computed in accordance with provisions of Income-tax Act. Section 80AB is also in Chapter VI-A. It starts with words 'where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section included in this Chapter'. This would include section 80HHC. Section 80AB further provides that'notwithstanding anything contained in that section'. Thus, section 80AB has been given overriding effect over all other sections in Chapter VI-A. Section 80HHC does not provide that its provisions are to prevail over section 80AB or over any other provision of Act. Section 80HHC would thus be governed by section 80AB. decisions of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 429 (Bom) and Kerala High Court in CIT v. Smt. T. C. Usha [2003] 132 Taxman 297 to contrary cannot be said to be correct law. Section 80AB makes it clear that computation of income has to be in accordance with provisions of Act. If income has to be computed in accordance with provisions of Act, then not only profits but also losses have to be taken into consideration. Even under section 80HHC(3)(c)(i) profit is to be adjusted profit of business. adjusted profit of business means profit as reduced by profit derived from business of exports out of India of trading goods. Thus, in calculating profits under sub-section (3)(c)(i) one necessarily has to reduce profits under sub-section (3)(c)(ii). As seen above, term'profit' means positive profit. Thus, if there is loss then those losses in export of trading goods have to be adjusted. They cannot be ignored. plain reading of section 80HHC makes it clear that in arriving at profits earned from export of both self- manufactured goods and trading goods, profits and losses in both trades have to be taken into consideration. If after such adjustments there is positive profit, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80HHC(1). If there is loss he will not be entitled to any deduction. [2004] 266 ITR 497 (Ker). It was submitted that word'profit' in section 80HHC must have same meaning in entire section, and that as word 'profit' in section 80HHC(1) means only positive profit, it will have same meaning in section 80HHC(3)(c). It is submitted that thus word'profit' in section 80HHC(3)(c) would not include losses and if there are any losses, they are to be ignored. plea is clearly without substance. Firstly, it is not necessary that word'profit' must have same meaning. meaning of word'profit' will depend on context in which it is used. In section 80HHC(1) it is admittedly used to indicate positive'profit' because deduction will only be of positive profit. Section 80HHC(3) has sub-section which provides how profits are to be worked out in computing total income. For purposes of such computation, both profits and losses have to be taken into account. Thus, word'profit' in section 80HHC(3) will mean profits after taking into account losses, if any. More importantly, in our view, term'profit' in section 80HHC both in sub-section (1) and in sub-section (3) means positive profit worked out after taking into consideration losses, if any. Thus, word'profit' has same meaning in section 80HHC(1) and (3). In IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2004] 12 SCC 742, after analysing position in manner done above, it was held that profit as contemplated under section 80HHC(1) and section 80HHC(3) means positive profit. said view was reiterated in ITO v. Induflex Products P. Ltd. [2006] 1 SCC 458. We are in respectful agreement with view." It stands settled, on co-joint reading of IPCA and A. M. Moosa, that where there are losses in export of one type of goods (for example selfmanufactured goods) and profits from export of other type of goods (for example trading goods) then both are to be clubbed together to arrive at net profits or losses for purpose of applying provisions of section 80HHC of Act. If net result was loss from export business, then deduction under aforesaid Act is not permissible. As fortiori, if there is net profit from export business, after adjusting losses from one type of export business from other type of export business, benefit of said provision would be granted. It is also to be borne in mind that in both aforesaid cases, namely, IPCA and A. M. Moosa, court was concerned with two business activi ties, both of which related to export, one from export of self manufactured [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC). [2006] 280 ITR 1 (SC). goods and other in respect of trading goods, i.e., those which are manufactured by others. In other words, court was concerned only with income from exports. In present case, however, fact situation is somewhat different. Here, in so far as export business is concerned, there are losses. However, appellant- assessee relies upon section 80HHC(3)(b), as existed at relevant time, to contend that profits of business as whole, i.e., including profits earned from goods or merchandise within India will also be taken into consideration. In this manner, argues appellant, even if there are losses in export business but profits of indigenous business outweigh those losses and net result is that there is profit of business, then deduction under section 80HHC should be given. However, having regard to law laid down in IPCA and A. M. Moosa, we cannot agree with learned counsel for appellant. From scheme of section 80HHC, it is clear that deduction is to be provided under sub-section (1) thereof which is "in respect of profits retained for export business". Therefore, in first instance, it has to be satisfied that there are profits from export business. That is prerequisite as held in IPCA and A. M. Moosa as well. Sub-section (3) comes into picture only for purpose of computation of deduction. For such eventuality, while computing "total turnover", one may apply formula stated in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC. However, that would not mean that even if there are losses in export business but profits in respect of business carried out within India are more than export losses, benefit under section 80HHC would still be available. In present case, since there are losses in export business, question of providing deduction under section 80HHC does not arise and as consequence, there is no question of computation of any such deduction in manner provided under sub-section (3). Therefore, we are of opinion that view taken by High Court is correct on facts of this case. With this, there may not be need to answer second facet of problem as question of computation of deduction does not arise. However, we find that even here, approach of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct. In present case, domestic income in respect of which benefit is sought is from dividend income, interest income, profit or sale of shares and fees received from arranging finance for assessee's clients. Tribunal has recorded this aspect as under: 13. It is, however, seen from assessee's profit and loss account for year of account ending on March 31, 1989, that aggregate sum of Rs. 26,04,477 (which assessee has labelled as total turnover) comprised not only export turnover of Rs. 16,67,084 but also following items which cannot properly be regarded as turnover: (Rs.) Brokerage received for arranging (1) 8,50,321 finance for assessee s claims (2) Dividend 5,247 (3) Interest 7,212 (4) Profit on sale of shares 74,913 9,37,693 Tribunal observed that aforesaid four items are income simpliciter and cannot be covered by expression "total turnover". Following discussion of Tribunal in this behalf needs to be quoted: "17. Now, mode and mechanics of computing deduction admissible to assessee falling under section 80HHC(3)(b) clearly proceeds on basis that in trading transactions profit, or, as case may be, loss is embedded in gross turnover. most significant conclusion that flows from said provision is that when section 80HHC(3) talks of turnover, it talks of trading receipts and not of receipts which are of nature of income to start with. It should, therefore, follow that aggregate sum of Rs. 9,37,693 referred to supra cannot be regarded as turnover, and that by same token, it should be left out of reckoning for purposes of computing deduction admissible to assessee under section 80HHC. If this exercise is done, we are back to proposition No. 1. This would mean that deduction admissible to assessee under section 80HHC would be nil, especially in view of fact that export business of assessee has resulted in loss... 19. But manufacturer may not invariably be able to export, in their entirety, goods or merchandise manufactured. He may export part of them and sell rest in India. Given paramount need to give fillip to exports, Parliament clearly intended that benefit of section 80HHC should not be denied in such cases. But difficulty in such cases is that profits attributable to exports cannot be ascertained with precision. This is because not only manufacturing activities but also selling activities (including activities connected with exports) from continuous, integrated whole. Even so, intention of Parliament, was to extend benefit of section 80HHC to extent of profits generated by exports. With this end in view, Parliament incorporated rule of thumb in section 80HHC(3)(b). As long as assessee has cleared profits in particular year of account, export profits are computed by applying to total profits ratio which export turnover bears to total turnover." We are in agreement with aforesaid view of Tribunal. Therefore, even otherwise, formula as sought to be applied by appellant does not become applicable on facts of this case. Thus, from every angle matter is to be looked into, appeal lacks merit. same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. *** Jeyar Consultant and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax