Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court has interpreted the words "derived from" and has highlighted the legislative intent. It states that devices adopted to reduce/inflate the profits of eligible business have to be checked. We fail to understand how this decision helps appellant. Regarding the contention raised on the basis of profit and loss account as on 31st March, 2006 of the Haridwar unit, which has been audited by the Chartered Accountant, the same is not relevant and does not deal with the contention and the findings recorded by the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal. The question raised and which has been dealt elaborately by the CIT(A)/Tribunal was with regard to the head office finance expenses and whether the said expenses are common head expenses, which are also relatable to the Haridwar unit. The assessee, as per the CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal, did not furnish and give the said bifurcation and details or justify their exclusion. We do not think the statement of profit and loss account, which has been relied upon by the appellant before us shows that the bifurcation or details of the head office expenses was given and should have been accepted as justifying their exclusion. For the sake of convenience we are reproducing the details mentioned in the profit and loss account as on 31st March, 2006 of the Haridwar unit. They prescribe broad heads and read :