( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.944 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.944 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.944 OF 2008 The CIT .. Appellant Vs. Shri.Kewal Krishna Suri .. Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta i/by Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.S.S.Shetty for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 25th September, 2008 DATE : 25th September, 2008 DATE : 25th September, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Appeal the Appellant has sought to raise the following substantial questions of law before this Court:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80HHF of the Income Tax Act to Rs.4,27,26,896/- in place of Rs.3,60,15,732/- allowed by the Assessing Officer by holding that while working out the deduction u/s.80HHF, "total turnover" shall not include the turnover from the domestic activity and the export activity shall be treated as "independent activity"? (b) Whether the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in ignoring self contained provisions of Section 80HHF(3) while deciding issue at ground ‘a’ above and relying on case pertaining to Section 80HHC where as provisions of Section 80HHC and 80HHF are different? 2. Perused an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.01.2008. In paragraph No.4 of the said order it is categorically recorded that there was no dispute at all that the Assessee had maintained separate set of account for export business, and the ( 2 ) local turnover had nothing to do with the export activity of the assessee and the local turnover mainly consisted of distribution of films and financing which were unrelated business to that of SBEH which was exclusively in the business of export. Thereater in Paragraph No.5 of the order, agreeing with the reasoning given by the learned CIT (A), the Tribunal has observed that the Assessee has two different business, one concerning with the distribution of the film rights and financing which is the local business and the other is concerning with the export of films, prints and other goods. The Tribunal has further observed that Apart from the accounts being maintained separately, there was no intermixing of funds nor there was interlacing of any activity except the proprietor who is common, and accordingly the lerned Tribunal has confirmed the order of the learned CIT (A). 3. There is a clear finding by the Tribunal that there were two separate businesses and two separate accounts maintained by the Assessee, though the Assessee was common. Under these circumstacnes, we do not find any substantial question of law raised in this Appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)