Shree Choudhary Transport Company v. ITO

426 ITR 289Supreme Court of India2020#1443 most cited

What is Shree Choudhary Transport Company v. ITO authority for?

The law applicable to an assessment year is the law in force during that assessment year, unless the statute provides otherwise expressly or by necessary implication. Amendments to tax laws are generally prospective.

79

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shree Choudhary Transport Company v. ITO · Section 4 of Income Tax Act · law applicable to assessment year · prospective amendment · previous year definition · section 3 of Income Tax Act · section 143(3) · section 148 · section 133A · section 147

Also reported as

118 Taxmann.com 47272 Taxmann 472

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 133ASection 147Section 119Section 127Section 142(2A)Section 151
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 12ab(4)(ii)section 40a(i)section 12aa(1)section 12aa(3)disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 12ab(4)sanction under section 151section 210section 12ab(1)(b)(ii)short deduction of tdscancellation of registrationsection 142(2a)

Judgments citing Shree Choudhary Transport Company v. ITO

Shri.Veeron Vincent, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Thrissur

ITA 256/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…d., vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC); CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC); CIT vs. VatikaTownship (P.)Ltd., [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC). We see no merit in assessee’s instant legal argument as per Shree Chowdhary Transport Co. vs. ITO [2020] 426 ITR 289 (SC) having rejected the very argument in the concerned assessee’s case. That being the legal preposition settled, we see no substance in learned counsel’s instant second additional ground/argument. Declined accordingly. We make it clear before parting that the assessee has not pressed any argument or ground on merits whatsoever. 4 ITA.Nos.2…

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2 vs. M/S Sterling Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

ITA/283/2024HC Delhi22 Aug 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 194

…ed by it and for the funds remitted to it being utilised for the said purposes. It is in the aforesaid context that the decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Choudhary Transport Co. v. CIT [Shree Choudhary Transport Co. v. CIT, (2021) 13 SCC 401 : (2020) 426 ITR 289] assumes significance. 59. As is manifest from the passages of that decision extracted hereinabove, Section 194-C was explained to embody an obligation on the person responsible to make a payment to a sub-contractor being liable to deduct tax at source. The Supreme Court held that an underlying contract which could otherwise be discerne…

M/S. Jagannath Construction, Rayagada vs. ITO, Rayagada Ward, Rayagada

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 147/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Jagannath Construction, M/S.Jagannath Construction, Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, At/Po: Tikini, Rayagada At/Po: Tikini, Rayagada Rayagada Pan/Gir No. No.Aaifj 0479 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik Asnd Subit Sahu, Advs J.M.Pattnaik Asnd Subit Sahu, Advs Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/8 8/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/8 /8/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik asnd Subit Sahu, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s.Jagannath Construction, M/s.Jagannath Construction, Vs. ITO, ITO, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, At/PO: Tikini, Rayagada At/PO: Tikini, Rayagada Rayagada PAN/GIR No. No.AAIFJ 0479 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.M.Pattnaik asnd Subit Sahu, Advs J.M.Pattnaik asnd Subit Sahu, Advs…

Maa Jagat Janani Seva Trust, Nambira vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 248/CTK/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2023-24 Maa Maa Jagat Jagat Janani Janani Seva Seva Vs. Cit (E), Hyderabad Cit (E), Hyderabad Trust, At- -Nambira, Po: Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aadtm 1575 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /07/2024

For Appellant: Shri P.K.MishraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 12A

…6.5 In the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 51 ITR 129 (SC) the same view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6.6 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chowdhary Transport Company Vs. ITO reported in 426 ITR 289 (SC) wherein held as under: 17.4 It needs hardly any detailed discussion that in income-tax matters, the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year in question, unless stated otherwise by express intendment or by necessary of implication. As per section 4 of the Act of 1961, the charge of incometax is with reference to any assessme…

M/S. Adarsh Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

ITA 142/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

…. 6.5 In the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 51 ITR 129 (SC) the same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6.6 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chowdhary Transport Company Vs. ITO reported in 426 ITR 289 (SC) wherein held as under: 17.4 It needs hardly any detailed discussion that in income-tax matters, the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year in question, unless stated otherwise by express intendment or by necessary implication. As per section 4 of the Act of 1961, the charge of income- tax is with reference to any assessmen…

M/S. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

ITA 141/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

…. 6.5 In the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 51 ITR 129 (SC) the same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6.6 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chowdhary Transport Company Vs. ITO reported in 426 ITR 289 (SC) wherein held as under: 17.4 It needs hardly any detailed discussion that in income-tax matters, the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year in question, unless stated otherwise by express intendment or by necessary implication. As per section 4 of the Act of 1961, the charge of income- tax is with reference to any assessmen…

M/S. Islamic Academy of Education, Mangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Bangalore

ITA 610/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 12A

…. 6.5 In the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 51 ITR 129 (SC) the same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6.6 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chowdhary Transport Company Vs. ITO reported in 426 ITR 289 (SC) wherein held as under: 17.4 It needs hardly any detailed discussion that in income-tax matters, the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year in question, unless stated otherwise by express intendment or by necessary implication. As per section 4 of the Act of 1961, the charge of income-tax is with reference to any assessment…

M/S. Adarsh Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 459/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harischchandra Naik M., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

…. 6.5 In the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 51 ITR 129 (SC) the same view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6.6 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chowdhary Transport Company Vs. ITO reported in 426 ITR 289 (SC) wherein held as under: 17.4 It needs hardly any detailed discussion that in income-tax matters, the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year in question, unless stated otherwise by express intendment or by necessary implication. As per section 4 of the Act of 1961, the charge of income-tax is with reference to any assessment…

M/S. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 458/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harischchandra Naik M., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

…. 6.5 In the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 51 ITR 129 (SC) the same view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6.6 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chowdhary Transport Company Vs. ITO reported in 426 ITR 289 (SC) wherein held as under: 17.4 It needs hardly any detailed discussion that in income-tax matters, the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year in question, unless stated otherwise by express intendment or by necessary implication. As per section 4 of the Act of 1961, the charge of income-tax is with reference to any assessment…

Citrus Check Inns Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1018/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai a/w Ms. Ritu PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen
Section 250

…s of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act takes effect from 1st April 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shree Choudhary Transport Company vs ITO, [2020] 426 ITR 289 (SC) held that the amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 is with effect from 01/04/2015, and shall be applicable from the assessment year 2015-16. Since it is settled that the amendment to section Citrus Check Inns Ltd. ITA no.1015/Mum./2019 ITA no.1016/Mum./2019 ITA no.1017/Mum./2019 ITA no.1018/Mum./2019 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance…

Citrus Check Inns Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1017/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai a/w Ms. Ritu PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen
Section 250

…s of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act takes effect from 1st April 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shree Choudhary Transport Company vs ITO, [2020] 426 ITR 289 (SC) held that the amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 is with effect from 01/04/2015, and shall be applicable from the assessment year 2015-16. Since it is settled that the amendment to section Citrus Check Inns Ltd. ITA no.1015/Mum./2019 ITA no.1016/Mum./2019 ITA no.1017/Mum./2019 ITA no.1018/Mum./2019 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance…

Citrus Check Inns Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1016/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai a/w Ms. Ritu PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen
Section 250

…s of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act takes effect from 1st April 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shree Choudhary Transport Company vs ITO, [2020] 426 ITR 289 (SC) held that the amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 is with effect from 01/04/2015, and shall be applicable from the assessment year 2015-16. Since it is settled that the amendment to section Citrus Check Inns Ltd. ITA no.1015/Mum./2019 ITA no.1016/Mum./2019 ITA no.1017/Mum./2019 ITA no.1018/Mum./2019 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance…

Citrus Check Inns Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1015/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai a/w Ms. Ritu PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen
Section 250

…s of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act takes effect from 1st April 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shree Choudhary Transport Company vs ITO, [2020] 426 ITR 289 (SC) held that the amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 is with effect from 01/04/2015, and shall be applicable from the assessment year 2015-16. Since it is settled that the amendment to section Citrus Check Inns Ltd. ITA no.1015/Mum./2019 ITA no.1016/Mum./2019 ITA no.1017/Mum./2019 ITA no.1018/Mum./2019 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mighty Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3016/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 36(1)(iii)

…enditure u/s.40(a)(ia) is not correct, because the said amendment was brought in the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2015 and is applicable prospectively. This has been held so by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs. ITO reported in 426 ITR 289. Hence, the action of the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 30% is not correct. Thus, this ground raised by the Revenue is allowed. 28. In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 25th August, 2023. (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 25/08/2023 KARUNA, sr.ps M/s. Mighty Constr…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mighty Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3711/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 36(1)(iii)

…enditure u/s.40(a)(ia) is not correct, because the said amendment was brought in the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2015 and is applicable prospectively. This has been held so by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs. ITO reported in 426 ITR 289. Hence, the action of the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 30% is not correct. Thus, this ground raised by the Revenue is allowed. 28. In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 25th August, 2023. (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 25/08/2023 KARUNA, sr.ps M/s. Mighty Constr…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mighty Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3042/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 36(1)(iii)

…enditure u/s.40(a)(ia) is not correct, because the said amendment was brought in the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2015 and is applicable prospectively. This has been held so by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs. ITO reported in 426 ITR 289. Hence, the action of the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 30% is not correct. Thus, this ground raised by the Revenue is allowed. 28. In the result, all the appeals raised by the Revenue are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 25th August, 2023. (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 25/08/2023 KARUNA, sr.ps M/s. Mighty Constr…

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

…IT(TP)A No.2846/Bang/2017 M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2846/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Addl. CIT Gardens LTPU Vs. Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli Bangalore Bangalore 560 071 PAN NO : AAACH1925Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2023 Date…

Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba vs. Deputy Commmissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Korba

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 148/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.148/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., Darri Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…mar AgrawalVs. DCIT, Circle-Korba (C.G.) pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his aforesaid contention. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer (2020) 426 ITR 289 (SC), wherein the following substantial question of law was raised before it: “3. As to whether sub-clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of the Act, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005, is applicable only from the financial year 2005-2006 and, hence, is not applicable to the present case relating to the financial year…

M/S Vivek Bhole Architects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1981/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 250Section 253(3)Section 40

…s of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act takes effect from 1st April 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shree Choudhary Transport Company vs ITO, [2020] 426 ITR 289 (SC) held that the amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 is with effect from 01/04/2015 and shall be applicable from the assessment year 2015-16. Since the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 is with effect from the assessment year 2015-16, therefore, the said amendment is not applicable to the year under…

Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1014/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…s of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act takes effect from 1st April 2015 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. We further find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shree Choudhary Transport Company vs ITO, [2020] 426 ITR 289 (SC) held that the amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 is with effect from 01/04/2015 and shall be applicable from the assessment year 2015-16. Since it is settled that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 is with effect from the assessment year 2015-16, the AO is directed to apply the said amended p…