{"id":34597,"date":"2023-05-07T10:48:30","date_gmt":"2023-05-07T05:18:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/arista-infrastructure-v-ito-2023-452-itr-172-guj-hc\/"},"modified":"2024-05-02T06:36:49","modified_gmt":"2024-05-02T01:06:49","slug":"arista-infrastructure-v-ito-2023-452-itr-172-guj-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/arista-infrastructure-v-ito-2023-452-itr-172-guj-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Arista Infrastructure v. ITO (2023) 452 ITR 172\/292 Taxman 226  \/335 CTR 848   (Guj.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Court \u00a0held that the law had been amended. Section\u00a0144B\u00a0of the Act has been introduced from April 1, 2021. This change was after the assessment order passed on February 6, 2021. What was applicable in the case of the assessee was the notification of August 13, 2020 which was the E-assessment Scheme. In the absence of following of the scheme under which it was a must for the authority to provide the show-cause notice-cum-draft assessment order and also affording opportunity to the assessee, in the absence of vital and mandatory procedure having been followed, the\u00a0 order of assessment was not valid. Held that even if the smallest part of a cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court, it would have a jurisdiction to decide the matter. On the facts that not only the assessee residing in Ahmedabad, but, it continued to do its business and operated from the State of Gujarat. Hence Gujarat High Court could decide the matter. \u00a0Followed, Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Addl. CIT (2010) 320 ITR 1 (SC) .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Prior to 1-4-2021-Order passed without notice-cum-Draft assessment order-No opportunity of  hearing-Order of  assessment was not valid-High Court-Territorial Jurisdiction-Part of  cause of  action arising in a particular area-High Court of that area has jurisdiction. [S. 143(3), Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-901","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34597","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34597"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34597\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41883,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34597\/revisions\/41883"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}