Issues: Whether the imported medical-device parts and accessories were classifiable under CTH 9018 rather than CTH 9033 and consequently chargeable to IGST at 12% rather than 18%.

Analysis: Heading 9018 covers medical instruments and appliances, including parts and accessories suitable for sole or principal use with such equipment, whereas CTH 9033 is a residuary entry for parts and accessories not specified elsewhere in Chapter 90. Chapter Note 2(b) requires parts and accessories suitable solely or principally for a particular medical instrument to be classified with that instrument. The applicable departmental circular also clarifies that such parts and accessories of medical devices falling under Heading 9018 attract 12% IGST. The settled classification position in the accepted earlier decision was applicable to the identical dispute.

Conclusion: The imported goods are classifiable under CTH 9018 and attract IGST at 12% under Serial No. 218 of Schedule II to Notification No. 01/2017-IT (Rate); their reclassification under CTH 9033 and the resulting differential IGST demand are unsustainable.

Issues: Whether rejection of a private bonded warehouse licence under Regulation 3(2)(c) on the basis of prior customs adjudication proceedings was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits licensing of private warehouses subject to prescribed conditions. Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Private Warehouse Licensing Regulations, 2016 disqualifies an applicant only where it has been penalised for an offence under the Customs Act, 1962. The regulation distinguishes a penalty for an offence from a civil monetary penalty imposed for contravention of customs provisions; the latter does not, by itself, constitute an offence under the criminal-offence framework in Chapter XVI of the Customs Act, 1962. The application had disclosed the pending customs cases, and the prescribed antecedent-verification procedure under Circular No. 26/2016-Customs was not shown to have been followed. Prior adjudication orders concerning customs contraventions could not therefore establish the statutory licensing disqualification.

Conclusion: Rejection of the private bonded warehouse licence application solely on the stated prior customs proceedings was legally unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether the entities qualified as Group Companies under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014, permitting intercompany use of export-promotion benefits; (ii) Whether helicopter parts imported under SFIS/SHIS were eligible as Capital Goods related to the importer's service-sector business; and (iii) Whether the Extended Period of Limitation could be invoked for duty demand on the helicopter-part imports.

Issue (i): Whether the entities qualified as Group Companies under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014, permitting intercompany use of export-promotion benefits.

Analysis: Paragraph 2.3 accords finality to DGFT interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy, while Paragraph 9.28 defines a Group Company by reference to voting rights or control over the board. The common directors' combined shareholding and control fulfilled the prescribed criteria. The DGFT clarification, issued after consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs, conclusively recognised the entities as Group Companies and was binding upon Customs authorities. The distinction drawn from a case involving a partnership concern did not apply to two incorporated companies. This sustained the intercompany utilisation of duty-credit scrips and port-handling earnings for Export Obligation Fulfilment.

Conclusion: The entities were validly treated as Group Companies, and the intercompany use of the relevant export-promotion benefits was lawful. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether helicopter parts imported under SFIS/SHIS were eligible as Capital Goods related to the importer's service-sector business.

Analysis: Paragraphs 3.12.6, 3.17.5 and 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy permit import of Capital Goods, including accessories, where related to the service-sector business. The helicopters were used for transporting personnel and project-related persons to remote infrastructure-project locations and for project monitoring. The regulatory description of helicopter operations as for private use did not establish personal use or breach of the Actual User Condition; it was a regulatory categorisation for civil-aviation operations. The helicopter parts were therefore connected with the service-sector business.

Conclusion: Helicopter parts were eligible for the exemption as Capital Goods, and the duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties founded on denial of that exemption were unsustainable. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Extended Period of Limitation could be invoked for duty demand on the helicopter-part imports.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period under Section 28(4) requires deliberate non-disclosure, wilful misstatement or Suppression of Facts with intent to evade duty. The relevant group-company issue had been disclosed to Customs and referred to the DGFT years before the investigation, and the requisite import and operational permissions had been obtained. The factual record did not establish deliberate withholding of material facts or intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The Extended Period of Limitation was not invocable, and the demand was independently unsustainable on limitation. In favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The adverse determination concerning helicopter-part imports was invalidated, while the favourable determinations granting group-company benefits and dropping the related proceedings remained effective.

Ratio Decidendi: A final DGFT interpretation under the Foreign Trade Policy that entities constitute Group Companies binds Customs authorities in administering export-promotion benefits.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's cumulative medical condition brought him within the "sick or infirm" exception under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, entitling him to regular bail.

Analysis: The expressions "sick" and "infirm" operate disjunctively and do not require a terminal, irreversible, imminently life-threatening condition, or a requirement of surgery. The applicable assessment concerns the petitioner's present physical functioning and whether the prescribed treatment can be effectively and continuously provided in custody. A cumulative assessment of the petitioner's advanced age, continuing spinal pathology, osteoporosis, painful and restricted movement, need for supervised rehabilitation, and cardiac management showed substantial physical impairment requiring structured ongoing care. Repeated hospital referrals, diagnostic investigations, medication, and conservative management did not by themselves establish that the necessary rehabilitation and supervision were available in custody. A pre-existing injury did not exclude entitlement under the statutory exception, and concerns regarding witnesses or evidence could be addressed through strict bail conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner fell within the "sick or infirm" statutory exception and was entitled to regular bail on medical grounds subject to strict conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether proportionate reimbursements of common expenses received during October 2010 to March 2015 were includible in the taxable value of the alleged renting service under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.

Issue (i): Whether proportionate reimbursements of common expenses received during October 2010 to March 2015 were includible in the taxable value of the alleged renting service under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.

Analysis: The memorandum expressly stipulated that no rent would be charged and required only proportionate sharing of electricity, water, municipal taxes, maintenance and other common outgoings. For the disputed period, Section 67 did not include reimbursable expenditure within consideration for taxable service. Rule 5(1), insofar as it sought to include all expenses incurred by the service provider, exceeded the scope of the unamended valuation provision. The amendment effective from 14 May 2015 expressly including reimbursable expenditure was substantive and prospective.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the proportionate reimbursements for the pre-amendment period were not includible in taxable value, and the demand was unsustainable on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.

Analysis: The expenditure-sharing arrangement was clearly demarcated, and no evidence showed recovery of any amount above the actual shared expenses or collection of service tax without remittance. The assessee was registered, regularly filed returns, and could bona fide treat the recoveries as reimbursements not forming part of taxable value. These circumstances did not establish suppression with intent to evade tax.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the requirements for invoking the extended limitation period were not established, and the extended-period demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand founded on inclusion of pre-amendment reimbursements was invalid both on the valuation issue and, independently, for want of grounds to apply the extended limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: A valuation rule cannot enlarge taxable consideration beyond the statutory scope of the charging provision; reimbursement of expenses became includible only through the prospective substantive amendment, and extended limitation requires proof of suppression with intent to evade tax.

Issues: Whether incentives, discounts and reimbursement amounts received by an authorised car dealer from vehicle manufacturers are taxable as a declared service of agreeing to do an act under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: A declared service under Section 66E(e) requires an independent contractual arrangement under which one party specifically agrees to refrain from, tolerate, or do an act, with a necessary and sufficient nexus between that obligation and the consideration. The dealer-manufacturer arrangements were on a principal-to-principal basis, and the receipts were connected with sales targets, purchase of spare parts, vehicle sales and customer discounts. Such amounts were trade discounts or sales-linked incentives, not consideration for a separately agreed obligation to do or tolerate an act. The applicable departmental circular and settled decisions also recognise that normal dealer incentives and discounts do not constitute Business Auxiliary Service merely because they are recorded as income.

Conclusion: The incentives, discounts and reimbursement amounts are not consideration for a declared service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 and are not liable to service tax.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal of the manufacturer abated upon approval of an insolvency resolution plan; (ii) Whether the process-house operator, despite not being the manufacturer, was liable to pay duty on its clearances and entitled to the claimed deductions in determining assessable value; (iii) Whether the transferee of stock and premises was liable for duty and penalty on clearance of the acquired excisable goods; (iv) Whether penalties under Section 11AC, Rule 173Q and Rule 209A were sustainable and whether general penalties under Rule 210 could be imposed.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal of the manufacturer abated upon approval of an insolvency resolution plan.

Analysis: The binding effect of the approved resolution plan covered the confirmed government dues, including duty, interest and penalties. Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 required abatement of the related pending appeal.

Conclusion: The manufacturer's appeal abated, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the process-house operator, despite not being the manufacturer, was liable to pay duty on its clearances and entitled to the claimed deductions in determining assessable value.

Analysis: Manufacture is the taxable event, but collection liability crystallises at clearance. The process-house operator cleared the goods on excise invoices and was therefore liable to discharge duty notwithstanding the finding that it was not the manufacturer. The arrangement was a colourable device, and the goods entered the wholesale stream only upon clearance to independent buyers. The claimed post-removal expenses for grading or handling, cartage, brokerage and interest on stock were incurred before the relevant clearance and formed part of the assessable value. The value-loss deduction retained in the adjudication was reflected in the re-determined demand.

Conclusion: The duty demand of Rs. 1,19,35,974 with interest against the process-house operator was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the transferee of stock and premises was liable for duty and penalty on clearance of the acquired excisable goods.

Analysis: The liability to pay excise duty at the point of clearance applies to the person clearing excisable goods from the premises, even if that person is not the manufacturer. The transferee cleared the stock taken over with the premises and was consequently liable for duty and interest. No basis existed for sustaining the original penalty.

Conclusion: Duty of Rs. 5,97,002 with interest was sustained, while the penalty liability was restricted to Rs. 1,000, partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalties under Section 11AC, Rule 173Q and Rule 209A were sustainable and whether general penalties under Rule 210 could be imposed.

Analysis: The relevant demands were within the normal limitation period and lacked a finding of the requisite mens rea or intent to evade duty for penalty under Section 11AC. Confiscation of goods is a prerequisite for penalty under Rule 209A, which was not established. However, the established involvement of the affected appellants in the acts resulting in duty evasion warranted imposition of the general penalty prescribed by Rule 210.

Conclusion: The impugned penalties were not sustained, and the affected appellants were liable only to a general penalty of Rs. 1,000 each, partly in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan ended the manufacturer's appellate proceeding; the remaining duty liabilities continued with interest based on clearances and valuation, while the punitive consequences were confined to general penalties.

Issues: (i) Whether service charges for modification of moulds were includible in the assessable value of bumpers under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invokable; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was imposable.

Issue (i): Whether service charges for modification of moulds were includible in the assessable value of bumpers under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.

Analysis: Rule 6 permits inclusion of the money value of additional consideration flowing from the buyer only where it has a nexus with the transaction value of the excisable goods. Explanation 1 covers tools, dies and moulds supplied free of cost or at reduced cost by the buyer. The original mould cost had already been amortised in the price of the bumpers. The modification charges were separately received for an independent service relating to existing moulds, and no nexus between those charges and the negotiated price of the bumpers was established. Charges for modification or repair of moulds did not fall within Explanation 1.

Conclusion: The mould-modification service charges were not includible in the assessable value of the bumpers, and the duty demand on this count was unsustainable on merits, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invokable.

Analysis: The extended period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty, with the burden resting on Revenue. The relevant activity, service-tax payment, mould amortisation and invoices had been disclosed through records and returns and were available during audit. The dispute involved an interpretative valuation question, and no positive act of concealment or intent to evade duty was established. As the entire demand was outside the normal limitation period, it could survive only through a valid invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invokable; the entire demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was imposable.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 11AC requires the same ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty that govern invocation of the extended period. Those ingredients were not established.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC was not imposable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No excise liability arose from the separately charged mould-modification services, and extended limitation and penal consequences were unavailable.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate consideration for a mould-modification service is not additional consideration for excisable goods under Rule 6 unless it has a nexus with the transaction value of those goods.

Issues: (i) Eligibility of the Dual Fuel Burner System for exemption under Sl. No. 332 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012; (ii) Sustainability of the duty demand, interest and penalty, including on limitation.

Issue (i): Eligibility of the Dual Fuel Burner System for exemption under Sl. No. 332 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.

Analysis: Sl. No. 332, read with List 8, covers specified non-conventional energy devices and systems. The supplies were commercially and functionally a complete Dual Fuel Burner System, engineered and installed to convert biomass-generated bio-gas into usable thermal energy. Its functional integration with the biomass gasification project established its identity as an eligible non-conventional energy system; its constituent components could not be artificially treated as independently supplied parts. The subsequent extension of exemption to specified parts did not affect eligibility of a complete system.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee: the Dual Fuel Burner System is an eligible non-conventional energy device/system entitled to the exemption.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of the duty demand, interest and penalty, including on limitation.

Analysis: Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits the extended limitation period only where the required elements, including suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, are established. The clearances and exemption claim were voluntarily disclosed shortly after the transaction, and the dispute concerned interpretation of the exemption notification. The extended limitation period was therefore unavailable. The same circumstances also did not establish the ingredients for mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee: the demand is time-barred, and the associated interest and penalty cannot be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The exemption applies to the integrated burner system, and the asserted fiscal recovery and penal consequences lack legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for an exemption covering a non-conventional energy device or system is determined by the commercial and functional identity of the integrated system, rather than by separately classifying its constituent components.

Issues: Whether railway-specific printed stationery intended exclusively for internal use was dutiable as excisable goods under Tariff Heading 4820.10.

Analysis: Excisability requires that goods be capable of being bought and sold for consideration. The settled decisions on identical printed railway stationery were applied: the printing imparted the essential character of products of the printing industry, bringing the goods under Chapter 49 rather than Chapter 48. Further, the articles bore railway-specific particulars, were usable only within the railway administration, and Revenue had produced no evidence establishing their marketability.

Conclusion: The printed stationery was not dutiable, being classifiable as products of the printing industry and not marketable; the central excise demand, interest and consequent penalty were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 required payment of 6% of the value of surplus electricity generated from bagasse and sold outside the factory.

Analysis: Rule 6(3) applies where common credit is used in relation to dutiable and exempted goods. The settled position treats bagasse as agricultural waste rather than a manufactured excisable product, and holds that generation and external sale of electricity from bagasse does not attract the 6% payment mechanism under Rule 6(3). The identical issue had consistently been resolved on that basis.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; no amount equal to 6% of the value of surplus electricity sold was payable under Rule 6(3).

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit is available on inputs exclusively used in research and development operations supporting the manufacture of excisable final products.

Analysis: Under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, credit extends to inputs used in activities that contribute to the manufacture of final products. Research and development is an ancillary or incidental activity connected with manufacture where its results ultimately contribute to the excisable products. No finding or allegation established that the research and development operations were unrelated to the manufacturing activity or final products.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on inputs used in the research and development operations could not be denied.

Issues: Whether an amount under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was payable on clearances of organic manure produced by mixing press mud and spent wash.

Analysis: Press mud and spent wash arise as waste or by-products in the manufacture of sugar and molasses, and organic manure results from their physical mixing. Such waste or by-products do not become manufactured final products merely because they are treated as exempted goods after amendment. The settled position is that Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) apply where a manufacturer produces dutiable and exempted final products using common CENVAT inputs; they do not apply to waste, residue, or by-products not involving manufacture.

Conclusion: No CENVAT amount was payable under Rule 6 on the organic manure, and the adjudged demands were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether hiring cranes under contracts that retain ownership and effective control with the supplier constitutes a transfer of the right to use goods and a deemed sale under the MVAT Act.

Analysis: Section 2(24)(b)(iv) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 treats a transfer of the right to use goods for consideration as a deemed sale. Such transfer requires that the hirer receive a legal and exclusive right to use the goods, distinct from a mere license to use them. The contractual terms showed that the supplier retained ownership, insurance responsibility and substantive effective control over the cranes; the hirers only received temporary use for an agreed hire period. The provision of fuel by the hirers did not alter this character.

Conclusion: The crane-hire arrangements were licenses to use the cranes and constituted service, not a transfer of the right to use goods or a deemed sale. MVAT, interest and penalty were consequently not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the Indian PE of a Netherlands bank is entitled under Article 24(2) to tax at domestic-company rates; (ii) Whether interest paid by the Indian PE to its overseas head office and branches is deductible without TDS compliance; (iii) Whether interest received by the Indian PE from its overseas head office and branches must be excluded as a payment to self; (iv) Whether ATMs qualify as computers for the applicable depreciation rate.

Issue (i): Whether the Indian PE of a Netherlands bank is entitled under Article 24(2) to tax at domestic-company rates.

Analysis: Section 2(22A) confines domestic-company status to an Indian company or a company satisfying the prescribed dividend-payment arrangements; the non-resident bank did not meet those conditions. The Explanation to Section 90 clarifies that a higher tax rate for a foreign company is not less favourable treatment. Article 24(2) was inapplicable because domestic and foreign companies are not in the same circumstances: the latter is taxable in India only on Indian-source income, while the former is taxable on global income. The DTAA contains no specific rate provision overriding the applicable domestic rate.

Conclusion: The Indian PE is not entitled to the domestic-company tax rate; the issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether interest paid by the Indian PE to its overseas head office and branches is deductible without TDS compliance.

Analysis: Article 7 treats the PE and head office as separate and distinct enterprises for computing PE profits. The deduction contemplated for banking enterprises under Article 7(3) remains subject to domestic-law requirements. Interest remitted to the overseas head office attracts tax deduction at source under Section 195, and non-compliance results in disallowance under Section 40(a)(i).

Conclusion: Interest paid without complying with TDS requirements is not deductible; the issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether interest received by the Indian PE from its overseas head office and branches must be excluded as a payment to self.

Analysis: The disallowance of outgoing interest arose from non-compliance with TDS requirements, not from any finding that the PE and head office are one person. Under the separate entity framework of Article 7, interest received by the PE from the overseas head office or branches is business income of the PE and cannot be excluded on a payment-to-self theory.

Conclusion: Interest received by the Indian PE from its overseas head office and branches is includible in its taxable Indian profits; the issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether ATMs qualify as computers for the applicable depreciation rate.

Analysis: Asset classification for depreciation depends on functional utility. ATMs undertake digital data processing through internal processing capability, specialised software, and network communication with banking servers. Their functional parity with computing equipment brings them within the computer category in Item 2B of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules.

Conclusion: ATMs qualify as computers for depreciation purposes; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessment must retain the foreign-company tax rate and include the disputed interest income while denying deduction of interest remitted without TDS compliance; depreciation on ATMs must be computed at the rate applicable to computers.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's restriction of the addition for disputed bullion purchases by applying a gross-profit rate of 0.15% gave rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal's determination rested on documentary evidence including purchase invoices, confirmations, banking records, GST records and stock registers. The corresponding sales and closing stock were undisputed. In the bullion trade, narrow profit margins and market-driven purchase and sale prices made an addition of the entire disputed purchases commercially incongruous. The Revenue did not establish perversity, absence of evidence, or disregard of material evidence in the Tribunal's factual findings. Vendor genuineness, sufficiency of purchase documentation and the appropriate gross-profit rate were factual matters.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the Tribunal's application of a 0.15% gross-profit rate to the disputed purchases was sustained.

Issues: Whether deletion of the addition for alleged bogus and unexplained purchases under Sections 69C and 115BBE gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The assessee had produced books of account, purchase invoices, banking payment details and supporting evidence. The addition rested principally on non-response by suppliers to notices and their GST-registration status, matters beyond the assessee's control. As the books were not rejected under Section 145(3) and the recorded sales were accepted, the corresponding purchases could not be disallowed in their entirety. The Tribunal's finding that the purchases were satisfactorily explained and that the addition was based on presumption rather than tangible material was a factual finding.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and deletion of the addition for the alleged purchases was justified.

Issues: Whether goods sold in a duty-free shop beyond the customs barrier, including goods imported for warehousing or re-export, are immune from domestic regulatory law.

Analysis: The fiscal-law principles governing customs duty and sales tax at duty-free shops do not create a general exemption from domestic regulatory law. Import occurs when goods are brought into Indian territorial waters; they are imported goods notwithstanding warehousing or absence of clearance for home consumption. A prohibition or restriction imposed by another domestic law renders the goods prohibited goods for customs purposes, and the intention to re-export does not displace applicable regulatory requirements, including import licensing.

Conclusion: Goods dealt with through a duty-free shop remain subject to the domestic regulatory regime; the protection associated with the customs frontier is confined to fiscal levies and does not confer immunity from non-fiscal regulation.

Outcome: The impugned GST registration cancellation order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh orders.

Issues: Whether a faceless reassessment completed before notification of the scheme for faceless assessment of income escaping assessment was valid.

Analysis: Section 151A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required notification of a scheme for faceless assessment, reassessment or recomputation of escaped income. Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 introduced the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, including reassessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reassessment dated 15.03.2022 preceded that notification. The earlier faceless-assessment framework did not authorise faceless reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the Faceless Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to conduct and complete the reassessment before the notified scheme took effect.

Conclusion: The reassessment was without jurisdiction and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.