The paper attempts to examine the relationship between various aspects of governance structure and return on assets as well as return on equity. For the purpose, the study makes use of some pertinent provisions such as size of board, board diversity in terms of gender, proportion of executive directors, proportion of independent directors, Chief risk officer (CRO), risk management committee, mandatory committees, voluntary committees and existence/nonexistence of whistle blower policy. The sample consists of Nifty500 corporates and covers a 10 year period from 2005-2015. Pooled OLS regression has been used to gauge the relationship. To ensure robustness of results year and industry effects, among other control variables, have been controlled for and results are similar across all models used. On a descriptive level, some noncompliance with certain mandatory provisions (e.g.: proportion of independent directors to be maintained) has been observed. Regression results indicate that larger boards and constitution of compulsory committees tend to be negatively related to return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). This calls for a review of provisions related to compulsory committees. Further, presence of non-executive directors, constitution of a risk management committee and formulation of a whistle blower policy has a significant positive impact on ROA and ROE. The results of the study are expected to be of immense utility to regulators, practitioners and academicians.