1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.01/2005 APPLICANT:- The Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENT :- M/s. Vasant Sahakari Sakhar karkhana Ltd., Pusad. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Adv. for applicant] [S/Shri C.J., N.J., S.C. Thakkar, Advs. for respondent] CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 27.10.2010 1. At the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court. “(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs.12,01,654/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of refundable deposite ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs.36,70,077/- on account of non-refundable deposite ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the refundable and non-refundable deposits of Rs.12,01,654/- and Rs.36,70,077/- respectively were not revenue receipts liable to tax ? 2 (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs.34,49,604/- on account of non refundable deposit ? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the non refundable deposit of Rs.34,49,604/- was not a revenue receipt liable to tax ?” 2. Learned Counsel for both sides fairly state that the aforesaid questions are answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd....Versus...Commissioner of Income-Tax and others, reported in (2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 3. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Income Tax Reference is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SSW