1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.57 OF 1997 The Commissioner of Income Tax Nashik .. Applicant. V/s. Tuljabhavani SSK Ltd. Osmanabad .. Respondent. Mr.A.S. Rao with Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for the applicant. Mr.S.N. Inamdar with Mr.P. Vaidya 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 : 19TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2005. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 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 I.T.A.T. relying on the I.T.A.T. Special Bench, Pune’s decision in the case of Shri Chhatrapati S.S.K. Ltd., reported in 198 ITR 78 was right in deleting the following additions by holding that the various funds/deposits were not the trading receipt of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bazpur Co-op. Sugar Factory Ltd. (172 ITR 321) ? 1. Non refundable deposits Rs.5,039 2. Cane development fund Rs.2,014 3. C.M. Fund Rs. 249 4. Drought relief fund Rs.1,009 5. Hutment fund Rs. 266 2. In so far as all other items except cane development fund is concerned, the issue is covered 2 by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siddheshwar S.S.K. Ltd. V/s. CIT [(2004) 270 ITR 1 Siddheshwar S.S.K. Ltd. V/s. CIT [(2004) 270 ITR 1 Siddheshwar S.S.K. Ltd. V/s. CIT [(2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC)] (SC)] (SC)] in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. So far as Cane Development Fund is 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 remanded 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.)