ORDER : Harsha Devani, J. 1. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue, is directed against the order dated 29.09.2015 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Ahmedabad in C.O. No. 109/Ahd/2010 in ITA No. 2704/Ahd/2008 on the following questions stated be the substantial questions of law: "[A] Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,31,33,256/- in respect of that part of the contract payment which was made by the assessee upto February, 2005, despite the fact that payment of TDS on such payment was made to the Govt. A/c. in the month of May, 2005 and thus, contravening the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as applicable in Assessment Year 2005-06? [B] Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in holding that the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. J.K. Construction Co reported in [2014] 361 ITR 181 (Guj) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case without appreciating that in the said decision the Hon'ble High Court had not decided the point of law as to whether the amendment made to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with effect from 01.04.2010 vide Finance Act, 2010 will have retrospective application with effect form 01.04.2015?" 2. The assessment year is 2005-06. 3. Heard Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. 4. It is an admitted position that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. BMS Projects, 361 ITR Page-195 (Gujarat) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-IV v. Omprakash R Chaudhary 57 taxman.com wherein it has been held that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2010 has retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. 5. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. 5. For the reasons recorded in the above referred decisions, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal gives rise to any question of law, much less, any substantial question of law warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.