Judgment :- K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J. Two questions have been referred to this court, one it the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessee. The question that has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that part of price of molasses set apart for contribution to the Molasses Storage Reserve Fund is not assessable as a trading receipt ?" An identical question came up for consideration before this court in the case of CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. wherein it was held that, "The selling price of molasses, a by-product obtained in the process of refining sugar, is fixed by the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, dated February 6, 1972. This order provides that a portion of the sale price should be accounted for and funded separately for providing adequate storage facilities in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in this behalf by the Government. The schedule to the order has specified varying rates per quintal for different grades of molasses, for determining the quantum to be transferred from the sale proceeds to the storage fund. Though the assessee collected this amount under the statutory obligation, it did not belong to the assessee, but to the molasses storage fund. The assessee could not utilise the amount in the said fund for any other purpose." In the said circumstances, it was held that there was diversion of title at the source of the income collected under the directions given under the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order and as such the sum in question was not includible in the assessee's total income and thereby answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the RevenueThe facts in the given case are identical to those referred to above, and, therefore, the first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. With regard to the second question, viz, "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would not be entitled to higher rate of depreciation effective from April 2, 1983, on plant and machinery ?" This court in the case of Sree Karpagambal Mills Ltd. v. CIT has held as follows: "The Central Board of Direct Taxes has the power to make rules with retrospective effect. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes while enacting the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983, did not specifically provide for the increased rate of depreciation at 15 per cent., on machinery and plant for which no special rate has been prescribed, operable retrospectively on and from a particular date. The depreciation as per the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983, is not to be allowed in all cases, which were pending on April 2, 1983, irrespective of the assessment year involved and depreciation under the said Rules, can, if at all, be allowed only in 1984-85 and subsequent years." The ratio of the abovesaid judgment is applicable to the case on hand and as such the assessee is not entitled to the depreciation as claimed and, therefore, the second question referred to us is answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.