1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.417 OF 1997 The Commissioner of Income Tax Nasik .. Applicant. V/s. Gangapur S.S.K. Ltd. .. 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 : 12TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 12TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 12TH 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 Tribunal, relying on its Special Bench decision in (198 ITR 78-AT) was right in deleting the following additions by holding that the various funds and deposits collected by the assessee society out of the sugarcane purchase price payable to the cane growers are not trading receipts of the assessee : 1. Non-refundable deposits Rs.19,07,063 2. Cane development fund Rs. 1,61,962 3. C.M. Relief fund Rs. 3,04,460 2. In so far as items viz. Non-refundable deposits and Chief Minister’s Relief Fund are concerned, the issue is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siddheshwar S.S.K. Siddheshwar S.S.K. Siddheshwar S.S.K. 2 Ltd. V/s. CIT [(2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC)] Ltd. V/s. CIT [(2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC)] Ltd. V/s. CIT [(2004) 270 ITR 1 (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 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.)