Judgment :- (Tax case (Appeals) filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 28.03.2005 in ITA No.736/Mds/2001, 1471 to 1474 (Mds)/2003, 327/Mds/97, 880 to 884/Mds/2000 & 1941(Mds)/2000 on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench for the assessment years 1995-96, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 1986-87 to 1990-91 and 1991-92.) P.D. Dinakaran, J. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.03.2005 made in ITA No.736/Mds/2001, 1471 to 1474 (Mds)/2003, 327/Mds/97, 880 to 884/Mds/2000 & 1941(Mds)/2000 for the assessment years 1995-96, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 1986-87 to 1990-91 and 1991-92. 2.1. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1995-96, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 1986-87 to 1990-91 and 1991-92. The case of the appellant is that the assessee is an Industrial Domestic Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn and blended yarn. For various assessment years the assessee has not included the excise duty and sales tax collection for the computation of total turnover, for computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The assessing officer negatived the contention of the assessee added the excise duty and sales tax to the total turnover while computing income for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Also, the assessing officer made addition of Rs.10 lakhs in relation to assessment years 1986-87 to 1993-94 on account of scrap sales and inflation of expenses, i.e,. travelling allowances, miscellaneous expenses, overtime wages etc. 2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeals, against which, the assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. 3. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeals raising the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty and sales tax do not form part of the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of benefit under Sec.80HHC? ii. ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions on account of unaccounted sale of scrap and inflation of expenses on the ground that seven individuals had disclosed these amounts before the Settlement Commission? 4.1. The first issue whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty and sales tax do not form part of the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of benefit under Sec.80HHC is concededly governed by a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Wheels India Ltd. reported in 275 ITR 319 in which one of us was a party wherein it was held that Section 80 HHC is a code by itself and in order to remove difficulties the Legislature thought it fit to explain and give meaning to various expressions employed in that section for the purpose of its working. The object of section 80HHC is required to be kept in mind while considering that section. The general definition of the word 'turnover" or the definition under the sales tax laws or the case law dealing with the definition of turnover under the State levy cannot be imported into section 80HHC of the Act, particularly, when such expressions are incorporated and explained in the provision itself. Sales tax and excise duty are not to be included in the total turnover while computing the deduction under section 80HHC. 4.2. Accordingly, the first question of law is answered against the Revenue. 4.3. Issue No.2: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions on account of unaccounted sale of scrap and inflation of expenses on the ground that seven individuals had disclosed these amounts before the Settlement Commission? 4.4. Concededly, the seven individuals, who are Directors of the assessee company had made declarations in respect of the income earned by their group concerns. It is not the case of the Department that they had earnings beyond these group of concerns. 4.4. Concededly, the seven individuals, who are Directors of the assessee company had made declarations in respect of the income earned by their group concerns. It is not the case of the Department that they had earnings beyond these group of concerns. The Tribunal after going through the submissions made by the individuals before the settlement commission on facts held that the additions were made in the hands of seven individuals and hence the addition made in the hands of the concern is totally unjustified, thus agreed that there is no scope for making any addition in the hands of the group concerns as suggested by the assessing officer. Since the Tribunal has deleted the additions on the facts of the case, we do not see any reason to interfere. Accordingly, we answer the second question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. The above tax case appeals stand dismissed. Consequently, TCMP Nos.1276 to 178 of 2005 are also dismissed.