No and Not

Sanjay, I'm not sure there are any other differences.

My understanding is that, similar to irregular verbs, this is one of those things in English that derive from the language's roots. That is, the difference is solely due to the part of speech where the world falls. I am not aware of any difference in meaning.

Here is what my Etymology Dictionary has to say:

Not: negative particle, mid-13c., unstressed variant of noht, naht "in no way" (see naught). As an interjection to negate what was said before or reveal it as sarcasm.

No: "negative reply," early 13c., from O.E. na (adv.) "never, no," from ne "not, no" + a "ever," from P.Gmc. *ne (cf. O.N., O.Fris., O.H.G. ne, Goth. ni "not"), from PIE root *ne- "no, not" (see un-). 

Did you understand that? I have to look up what the abbrevations mean each time (they are the names of various early European languages).

Inn order to make a sentence negative, no and not are used.  When it is used before a noun, it functions as an adjective because it describes a noun.  eg: I have no brothers.

"Not" functions as as adverb as it describes the verb.  eg:  I did not go there yesterday.