Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam

10 SCC 386Reported decision2016#18549 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Goldman Sachs Services Pvt Ltd

ITA/29/2019HC Karnataka10 Jun 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

Section 115Section 37(2)

…trator. The reasons of the Civil Court to say that the said judgment is not applicable to facts of the case is not sustainable in law.  The judgments of Supreme Court has clarified in the case of A.Ayyawamy V/S Paramashiva and others. reported in (2016)10 SCC 386. That the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide the facts even in cases where fraud is alleged. The manner of mentioning the price in the sale deeds than the one agreed for sale of flats is not a serious fraud which cannot be decided by arbitrator. The recording of finding on such issue does not require elaborate trail to discover the fraud.…

The State of Karnataka vs. Hassan Thermal Power Private Limited

WA/190/2020HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 4

…eported in (2014) 3 SCC 502; 7) Dwarka Prasad Agarwal vs. B D Agarwal, reported in 2003(6) SCC 230; 8) Nusli Neville Wadia vs. Ivory Properties , reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 1313 ; 9) A.Ayyasamy vs. A.Paramasivam & Ors., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 386; 10) Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Essar Power Ltd., reported in 2008(4) SCC 755; 11) Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. Reliance Energy Ltd., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 381; 12) Tata Power Company Ltd., vs. Reliance Energy Ltd., reported in (2009) 16 SCC 659; 32 13) Tata Power Company Ltd., v…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-10 vs. Rano Singh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/110/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 11Section 9

…FAO(OS)No.110/2017 Page 1 of 7 $~2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 110/2017 % Date of decision : 5th April, 2018 SULEKH AGARWAL ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Adv. versus M/S SHIV ASTHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Namit Suri and Mr. Akshit Pradhan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)-1 vs. Shri Arvind Khanna

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/104/2017HC Delhi22 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 11Section 9

…the genuineness of the agreement in the light of case laws especially Bharat Rasiklal Ashra Vs. Gautam Rasiklal Ashra (2012) 2 SCC 144. This line of reason has been followed by subsequent judgment in A. Ayyasamy Vs. A. Paramasivam and others (2016) 10 SCC 386. In Bharat Rasiklal Ashra (supra) the Court held no doubt that mere allegations of fraud or fabrication should not ordinarily lead to the Court refusing to consider the existing arbitration clause. The Single Judge detailed – in paras 14 to 16 extracted above – his reasons why the allegations in the present case were serious. As to the app…