ORDER 1. HEARD MR CHINMOY KHALADKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER, AT GREAT LENGTH. IN OUR VIEW, NO CASE IS MADE OUT FOR INTERFERENCE AT ALL. 2. REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT IN CIT V. MALAYALAM PLANTATION LTD.1 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT: (SCR P. 705) "THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION LEADS TO THE FOLLOWING RESULT: THE EXPRESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS IS WIDER IN SCOPE THAN THE EXPRESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING PROFITS. ITS RANGE IS WIDE: IT MAY TAKE IN NOT ONLY THE DAY-TO-DAY RUNNING OF A BUSINESS BUT ALSO THE RATIONALISATION OF ITS ADMINISTRATION AND MODERNISATION OF ITS MACHINERY; IT MAY INCLUDE MEASURES FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE BUSINESS AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF ITS ASSETS AND PROPERTY FROM EXPROPRIATION, COERCIVE PROCESS OR ASSERTION OF HOSTILE TITLES; IT MAY ALSO COMPREHEND PAYMENT OF STATUTORY .DUES AND TAXES IMPOSED AS A PRECONDITION TO COMMENCE OR FOR CARRYING ON OF A BUSINESS; IT MAY COMPREHEND MANY OTHER ACTS INCIDENTAL TO THE CARRYING ON OF A BUSINESS. HOWEVER WIDE THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION MAY BE, ITS LIMITS ARE IMPLICIT IN IT. THE PURPOSE SHALL BE FOR E THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS, THAT IS TO SAY, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED SHALL BE FOR CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL INCUR IT IN HIS CAPACITY AS A PERSON CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS." CAN BE OF NO ASSISTANCE AT ALL. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE AMOUNTS ARE PURPORTED TO BE SPENT ON THIRD PERSONS WHO HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE PETITIONERS BUSINESS AT ALL. THEY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR RATIONALISATION OF ADMINISTRATION OR MODEMISATION OF MACHINERY AND ARE ALSO NOT MEASURES FOR PRESERVATION OF BUSINESS OR FOR PROTECTING ITS ASSETS AND PROPERTY. SUCH PAYMENT DOES NOT FALL INTO ANY OF THE CATEGORIES ENVISAGED BY THE ABOVEMENTIONED JUDGMENT. 4. WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS DISMISSED. COURT MASTERS