ITA 10/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL Amitava Roy, J Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Revenue and Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the respondent. The substantial question of law which needs to be answered in the present appeal is hereunder: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was jus tified and correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction U/S 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the composite income of the assessee before application of Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ? Mr. Bhuyan has submitted that this question has since been answered authoritativ ely by the Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus WILLAMSON FINANCIAOL SERVICES AND OTHERS (2008) 2 SCC 202. The state of law in terms of the aforemen tioned judgment of the Apex Court has not been disputed on behalf of the respond ent. In the above view of the matter, in terms of the judgment and order rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Willamson Financial Services and Others (Supra), the afore quoted question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue by elucid ating that the deduction U/s.80-HHC under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be allo wed after the apportionment of income under Rule 8(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1 962. In view of the premise in which this order disposing of the appeal has been pass ed, there is no necessity of dilating on the factual details. The appeal stands allowed. No costs.