ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THE assessee has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') against the order of the questions of law : "1. Whether the duty drawback received by the appellant is derived from an industrial undertaking per the genesis of the word derived in its true sense and spirits ?
(2.) WHETHER the duty drawback received is an amount derived eligible for claim as per s. 28(iiic) though the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 stands repealed ?
(3.) WHETHER there can be an interpretation of the word 'derived' distinct from as laid in CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 153 CTR (SC) 439 : (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) being a broader interpretation per the judgment of State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali AIR 1952 (SC) 75 and the judgment of Katikara Chintarnani Dora vs. Guntreddi Anna Manaidu, 1974 (1) SCC 567 ? Whether the action of the executive is sustainable in denying the claim of the duty drawback which is having direct nexus and being germane to the business as per the judgments of Union of India vs. Rajindra Dyeing & Printing Mills Limited 2005 (180) ELT 433 (SC), and Sun Industries, 1988 (35) ELT 241 (SC)." 2. The assessee derives income from manufacture of export of carpets. During the course of assessment, for the asst. yr. 2003 -04, the AO excluded claim of Rs. 1,41,02,387 from business profits while working out deductions under s. 80 - IB of the Act. The said amount was received by the assessee as duty drawback. It was held that the said amount could not be treated as profits derived from industrial undertaking. The CIT(A) affirmed the view taken by the AO relying, inter alia, on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 153 CTR (SC) 439 : (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC). 3. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the assessee relying upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sterling Foods' case (supra) and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Liberty India vs. CIT (2007) 207 CTR (P&H) 243 : (2007) 293 ITR 520 (P&H). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;