Judges in N Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre

12 SCC 278Reported decision2004#8327 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 10(23C)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 119Section 12(1)(ac)Section 120Section 127

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)(i)section 292c(1)(i)section 292c(1)section 292bbsource of sourcesection 292bsection 132(4a)section 127section 292csection 292non-application of mindsection 29

Judgments citing Judges in N Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre

REKHA KHAITAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 19 DELHI

The appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid directions

ITA/386/2023HC Delhi19 Dec 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…as considered gross weight of the jewellery. 20. Mr. Agrawal has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions that a wrong/erroneous mentioning of a provision shall not vitiate an order: (i) N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and Others, (2004) 12 SCC 278; (ii) Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 255; (iii) Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, 2012 SCC OnLine AP 571 and; (iv) Gingee Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society v. Limited Deputy Commissioner (CT), Cuddalore and another, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8389. 21. Having he…

REKHA KHAITAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 19 DELHI

The appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid directions

ITA/387/2023HC Delhi19 Dec 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…as considered gross weight of the jewellery. 20. Mr. Agrawal has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions that a wrong/erroneous mentioning of a provision shall not vitiate an order: (i) N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and Others, (2004) 12 SCC 278; (ii) Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 255; (iii) Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, 2012 SCC OnLine AP 571 and; (iv) Gingee Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society v. Limited Deputy Commissioner (CT), Cuddalore and another, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8389. 21. Having he…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 39/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 69C

…specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law [see N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 278]. Thus, quoting of wrong provision of Section 20 in the order of discharge of the appellant by the competent authority does not take away the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 22 of the Army Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the appellant from the army service cannot be vitiated on this sole ground as contended by the Learned Cou…

DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA vs. OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1108/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…g quoted Section 431 of the Act (wrongly), for, quoting the wrong provision of law, when the power to do an act otherwise exists, would not invalidate or render illegal the act in question. A Bench of three learned Judges in N Mani v Sangeetha Theatre, (2004) 12 SCC 278 held: ‘9. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available…

DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA vs. OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1107/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…g quoted Section 431 of the Act (wrongly), for, quoting the wrong provision of law, when the power to do an act otherwise exists, would not invalidate or render illegal the act in question. A Bench of three learned Judges in N Mani v Sangeetha Theatre, (2004) 12 SCC 278 held: ‘9. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available…

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1105/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…g quoted Section 431 of the Act (wrongly), for, quoting the wrong provision of law, when the power to do an act otherwise exists, would not invalidate or render illegal the act in question. A Bench of three learned Judges in N Mani v Sangeetha Theatre, (2004) 12 SCC 278 held: ‘9. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available…

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1104/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…g quoted Section 431 of the Act (wrongly), for, quoting the wrong provision of law, when the power to do an act otherwise exists, would not invalidate or render illegal the act in question. A Bench of three learned Judges in N Mani v Sangeetha Theatre, (2004) 12 SCC 278 held: ‘9. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available…

OSWAL POLYCOT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-I, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1103/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…g quoted Section 431 of the Act (wrongly), for, quoting the wrong provision of law, when the power to do an act otherwise exists, would not invalidate or render illegal the act in question. A Bench of three learned Judges in N Mani v Sangeetha Theatre, (2004) 12 SCC 278 held: ‘9. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available…

ALAGU PROCESS,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), TIRUPPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 695/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.695/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alagu Process, The Income Tax Officer, S.F No.414, Vs. Ward-2(1), Palavanjipalayam Ring Road, Tiruppur. Veerapandi Post, Tirupur – 641 605. [Pan: Aavfa 5147P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of : 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/105992446(1), Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.147 R.W.S

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…see. " 9.7.6 Reliance is also placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ram Sunder Ram vs Union of India & Ors.(2007) 13 SCC 255, wherein after referring to the Apex Court's decision in the case of N Mani Vs Sangeetha Theatres & Ors( 2004) 12 SCC 278, the Hon'ble Court held that "It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to…

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1803/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 246ASection 80G

…ranted earlier was governed by this section. Thus, reference to this section has been made along with currently applicable sec 12AB(4)  Decision of SC in Ram Sunder Ram Vs Union of India &Ors. (2007 [9] SCALE 197) and N. Mani Vs Sangeetha Theatres &Ors (2004 12 SCC 278) highlight that proceedings are valid as long as jurisdiction exists. Gr.4. Retrospective withdrawal of registration w.e.f AY 2015-16 is in violation of provisions of the act and settled legal position (Pg 25 28) P a g e | 8 Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs. Pr.CIT, Central-3  Section 12AB was inserted w.ef. 01.04.2021, however, prior registr…

MADHYAM BUILDTECH P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6400/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…y the jurisdiction of the authority under section 22 of the Army Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the appellant from the army service cannot be vitiated on this sole ground as contended by the appellant. In N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatres & 0rs.(2004) 12 SCC 278, it was held that it is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source av…

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…d principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.’ Similarly, in N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatres & Ors. [(2004) 12 SCC 278], it stated as under: ‘9. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a s…

M/S. GALAXY NIRMAAN PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1247/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Acit, Cc-12, New Delhi Galaxy Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd., 12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar –Iv, New Delhi Pan : Aaccg5553D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/01/2014 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxxi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2010-11, In Relation To Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer For Non-Payment Of Self-Assessment Tax By The Assessee. In The Form No. 36 Filed Along With The Appeal, The Assessee Raised Ground Of Appeal As Under:

Section 139(1)Section 140ASection 140A(1)Section 140A(3)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 221

…specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law [see N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 278]. Thus, quoting of wrong provision of Section 20 in the order of discharge of the appellant by the competent authority does not take away the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 22 of the Army Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the appellant from the army service cannot be vitiated on this sole ground as contended by the Learned Cou…