1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.205 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income Tax Kolhapur .. Applicant. V/s. Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr.Ashok Kotangale with Mr.Parag Vyas for the applicant. Mr.Pramod Vaidya i/b. S.N. Inamdar for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & CORAM : V.C. DAGA & CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 24TH OCTOBER, 2005. DATED : 24TH OCTOBER, 2005. DATED : 24TH OCTOBER, 2005. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Tribunal has referred following questions for the opinion of this Court, reading as under : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT relying on the decision of its Special Bench in the case of Shri Chhatrapati SSK Ltd. (198 ITR 78 - AT) was right in deleting the following additions by holding that the various funds/deposits collected by the assessee society out of the sugarcane purchase price payable to the cane growers are not trading receipts of the assessee ? 1993-94 1994-95 -------------------- 1. Non-refundable deposits 1349800 1915273 2. C.M.’s relief fund 415267 317995 3. Indira Awas Nidhi 35343 - 4. Area Development fund 2076301 1594415 2 5. Cane development fund 1661048 1271931 6. Small savings 414000 320000 7. Earthquake fund 1033700 - 8. Water Scarcity fund 21206 - 2. In so far as all other items except area development fund and cane development fund for both the assessment years are concerned, the issue is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siddheshwar S.S.K. Ltd. V/s. CIT [(2004) 270 Siddheshwar S.S.K. Ltd. V/s. CIT [(2004) 270 Siddheshwar S.S.K. Ltd. V/s. CIT [(2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC)] ITR 1 (SC)] ITR 1 (SC)] in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. So far as area development fund and Cane Development Fund for both the assessment years are concerned, the issue will have to be referred back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siddheshwar S.S.K. Ltd. (supra) as such the said issue stands remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. 3. The reference is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)