HVN 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. 125 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus Shri. Pradeep S. Jain ... Respondent Mr. A.D. Kango for the Appellant. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED: JULY 02, 2008 DATED: JULY 02, 2008 DATED: JULY 02, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The question of law is as framed in Para 2 of the Appeal Memo. Both the C.I.T. (Appeal) and I.T.A.T. have recorded concurrent finding of fact that there are two separate activities conducted by the Assessee one for exports and other for domestic purposes and that there are separate machineries kept in separate premises and separate books of accounts. These are purely findings of fact. The said assessee has claimed benefit only in respect of the exports. The question of law would not arise. Consequently, appeal dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)