← All Phrases

“live link”

Judicial DoctrinesReopening / 147Reopening / 1471,109 judgments

The decision most relied on for live link is ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (103 ITR 437), cited in 721 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on live link

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.
354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court
366
citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.
384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court
274
citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.
396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court
272
citing judgments

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

CIT v. Foramer France
264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court
253
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.
217 ITR 597 · 1996 · Supreme Court
180
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's belief that income has escaped assessment, leading to the reopening of an assessment, is a matter of subjective satisfaction. The materials available at the time of forming this belief do not need to conclusively prove the escapement of income.

153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat v. ITO
296 ITR 90 · 2008 · High Court
171
citing judgments

A live link of third-party information can form the basis for reopening an assessment under Section 148, provided it contains material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate a "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, which can be satisfied by such information even if it pertains to other assessees or relates to accommodation entries.

Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT
102 ITR 287 · 1976 · Supreme Court
137
citing judgments

The Supreme Court broadly defined 'information' for reassessment under Section 147 to include new facts, external sources, material already on record, or a correct understanding of law from judicial decisions. This definition enables reopening assessments based on subsequent information or mistakes.

Judgments citing live link

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Bhagwan Das Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1254/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1254/Pat/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Dcit, Central Circle-3(2), Vs Bhagwan Das Agarwal, Kolkata 21, Hemant Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Afjpa 9084 Q (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 24.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. Shri Raja Sengupta, Ld. Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri Devesh Poddar, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. A Perusal Of The Facts Of The Present Case Shows That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 24.03.2025 Has Been Received In The Office Of Pr.Cit, Central-2, Kolkata On 24.03.2025. The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Expired On 23.05.2025 & The Appeal Has Been Filed On 09.06.2025. Thus, There Is A Delay Of 21 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed A Condonation Application Stating Therein As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 3Section 68

there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the satisfaction appears to be more akin to a ‘borrowed satisfaction’ without any live link to the facts of the case. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) recorded in this regard are as under :- Applying the test ... thereof. There is no application of mind in any manner and his satisfaction appears to be more akin to a 'borrowed satisfaction' without any live link to the facts of the case. 11. A perusal of the grounds raised by the revenue clearly shows that the revenue has not challenged