JUDGMENT Order respondent-assessee is public limited company engaged in growing and manufacturing tea besides trading activities. assessee had export turnover of Rs. 7,24,99,271. total turnover of assessee came to Rs. 40,82,91,806. assessee had exported tea and had received sale proceeds in foreign exchange. assessee claimed that profits derived from export should be computed in accordance with clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC. For assessment year 1987-88, respondent claimed deduction under section 80HHC to extent of Rs. 16,27,562. deduction was restricted to profits derived from export. For this purpose, profit derived from export had been calculated in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 80HHC. However, provisions of section 80AB was also applicable. While completing assessment under section 143(3), it was found that there was loss from Kerala tea and only small profit from Tamil Nadu tea. net result of trading in tea was loss. business income included in total income is actually income from other activities and income from services rendered. After setting off losses from tea learned Assessing Officer, vide his order dated March 19, 1990, held that deduction is not permissible, as section 80AB is to be applied. Aggrieved, respondents approached before office of Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide his order in appeal dated August 29, 1999, appeal was partly allowed in respect that Assessing Officer was not justified in estimating value of unyielding rubber trees as on January 1, 1974, at Rs. 100 and according to appellant it cannot be less than Rs. 200. However, he dismissed appeal on grounds pertaining to claim of reduction of Rs. 16,27,562. Aggrieved, respondent filed appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, vide its order dated July 2, 1997, allowed claim of respondent-assessee by holding that section 80AB has no application to case covered by section 80HHC of Act. Aggrieved, appellant filed appeal before High Court. High Court, vide its impugned judgment and final order dated March 12, 2003, dismissed this appeal and affirmed decision of Tribunal. No body is present on behalf of respondent-assessee. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for appellant, Mr. Dhruv Mehta. He has drawn our attention to recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in case of Jeyar Consultant and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2015] (4) SCALE 410 wherein it is categorically held that to avail of benefit of section 80HHC of Income-tax Act there has to be positive income from export business. said judgment in our opinion squarely covers present case. order of High Court is accordingly set aside and order of Assessing Officer is restored. appeal is accordingly disposed of. [2015] 373 ITR 87 (SC). *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Harrison Malayalam Ltd