IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1446 OF 2007 The CIT-20 )..Appellant V/s. M/s.King Metal Works )..Respondents ---- Mr.R.Ashokan for the appellant. Mr.Paras S.Savla for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 18.2.2009. PC 1. The substantial questions of law as framed in this appeal memo are as follows :- (a) The substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of Sec.80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other provisions and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. by replacing the figure of indirect cost with a positive figure of Rs.85,33,976/- as against the negative figure of Rs.1,25,90,977/- as claimed by the assessee while computing the deductions U/s.80 HHC ? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in allowing the exchange fluctuation income earned by the assessee as a business income for the purpose of computing deduction U/s.80 HHC of the Act ? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in treating the interest income earned by the assessee as business income instead of treating the same as income from other sources as correctly assessed by the A.O. ? 2. As regards question-(a), the same has been answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Hero Exports Vs. CIT reported in 295 ITR 454, in favour of the assessee. 3. Question-(b) has been answered in the negative by us while dismissing Income-tax Appeal No.1249 of 2007 in which the said question arose. 4. As far as question-(c) is concerned, tax effect is negligible and value thereof is less than Rs.4 lakhs. 5. In the circumstances, we refrain from entertaining the appeal and the same is summarily dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)