← 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

Adnan Rahmat, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 674/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.674/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Adnan Rahmat, Vs Ito Ward-30(1), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Adepr 1602 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Reasons As Mentioned By The Ao In Page 1 Of The Assessment Order Did Not Having Live Link To The Actual Issue, Insofar As This Was The Case Of Joint Development Agreement & No Income Could Be Assessed In The Hands Of The Assessee On The Basis Of Such Joint Development Agreement Until The Completion Of The Development Of The Project. 3. At This Point, It Was Requested To The Ld. Ar To Provide The Reasons Recorded. It Was Submitted That The Revenue Has Not Provided The Same. 4. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Submitted That He Does Not Have Immediately Copy Of The Reasons Recorded.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

submitted by the Ld.AR that the reasons as mentioned by the AO in page 1 of the assessment order did not having live link to the actual issue, insofar as this was the case of joint development agreement and no income could be assessed in the hands of the assessee