# %1dlu,. Bea·iwllJ' PriNJI L1d v. U11Um o/ lntlia

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 594
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** J. L. KAPua, M. HrnAYATULLAH, J.C. Shah, J. R. MunnoLKAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1dlu-bea-iwllj-prinji-l1d-v-u11um-o-lntlia-2326
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

lnwme Ta:r-Detelopmtftt Rtbak-DiaallouJanu on offiu
appliances and tmnaport V<liic/u I/ di«:rimi11atory-J....,,,...taz
Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) aR amtndtd by tM. Ta:raliott U.wa
(Amendment) Act (28 o/ 1960, a. 10(2) (ri-b) -4 prolli.to.
The as~ company owned a fleet of bmes and carried
on the business of transport. The income-tax offiett disallowed development rebate on the transport vehicles owned
by the company as provided by the second proviso to s. 10(2)
(vi-b) of the Income-tax Act. The company challenged the
section on the ground that the said provbo offends Art. 14 In
that it discriminates between machinery which is ofrICe applianc.,. or road transport vehicl.,. and other kinds of machinery.
lleld, that there is nothing in the Constitution which
prevents the Legislature from choo.ing the objects of taxation
from amonll"t vaiious classes of machinery for purpose of
giving development rebate.
OIUGINAL JuruenrCTION: Petition No. 143 of
1961.
Petition under Art. 32 or the Constitution of
India for the enforcement of Fundamental rights.
S. Sunminathan and R. GopaJakri.,hnan, for the
petitioner.
K. N. Rajagopaki Sastri and P. D. Menon, for
the respondentAI.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
595
1962
1962. January 16. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
KAPUR, J.-This is a petition by the asaessee
under Art. 3:! of the Constitution challenging the
constitutionality of the second proviso to s. 10(2)
(vi-b) of Income tax Act introduced by The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act (28 of 1960). The
relevant section with the proviso is as follows :-
Sou"'4m RoadWt11•
p,;-Ltd.
S. 10(1) "The tax shall be payable by an
s,ssessee under the head "Profits and gains
of business, profession or vocation" in respect
of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him.
(2) Such profit• or uains shall be com·
puted after making the followin~ allowances,
namely:
............................................... ' ............ .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... .
(vi-b) in respect, of machinery or plant
being nPw, which has been installed after the
3 lst day of March, 1954, and which is wholly
used for the purposeR of the business carried
on by the assessee, a sum by way of development rebate in respect of the year of installation equivalent to twer.ty-five per cent of the
actual cost of such machinery or plant to
the assessee :
Provided that no allowance under this
clause shall be m'lde unless the particulars
prescribed for the purpose of clause (vi) have
been furnished by the assessee in respect of
such machinery or plant;
Provided further that no allowance under
this clause shall be made in respect of any
machinery or plant which consist of office
appliances or road transport vPhiclPs."
The petitioner is a limited company with its
registered office at ;\fadm·qi in the Rtate of llfadras
v.
Union of Ind i•
K¥UrJ.
1962
,%1dlu,. Bea·iwllJ' ..
PriNJI L1d.
v.
U11Um o/ lntlia
K•pur .J.
J!u;;t
5!16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1002) SUPP.
which owna a. fleet of buses a.nd lorries and carriell
on the business of transport
In res1wot of !IBRl'R~·
ment year I !!60-61 it cla.imoo a. development rPbate
on all its plants and machiner.v including buPines.q.
The Income tax Officer diHallowed tho olnim of
rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso
above quoted and computed the tax payable without such rebatfl.
ft was contonderl on behalf of
the petitioner that the proviso oft'cnrls Art. 14 in
that it discriminates betweon machinery which is
office appliance or road transport vehicl<'s and
other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept
such a contention because there is nothing in the
Constitution which prevents the legislBture from
r:hoosing thp, object of taxation from
11mong~t
various classes of machinery for the purpose of
giving d<'vefopment rebate. Tho Constitution rloes
not prohibit any sueh cla.ssifica.tion which has l>l'en
ma.de in the present case.
The peti

## Text

1H2
M/,. S-th
Lid.
••
Bt"' o/ ;1.,..,
x..., J.
594 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
In view of our decision on these two points
the third point, that is, the refuse.I of the Sales Tax
Officer to amend t.he registration certificate will
have no force.
In the re8Ult thiB petition fails and is dismi88ed
and the rule is dillche.rged. The petitioner will pay
the costs of the respondent.
P e.tition diamisaed.
SOUTHERN ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHE1t
(B. P. S1x1u. C.J., J. L. KAPua, M. HrnAYATULLAH,
J.C. SHAH and J. R. MunnoLKAR, JJ.)
lnwme Ta:r-Detelopmtftt Rtbak-DiaallouJanu on offiu
appliances and tmnaport V<liic/u I/ di«:rimi11atory-J....,,,...taz
Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) aR amtndtd by tM. Ta:raliott U.wa
(Amendment) Act (28 o/ 1960, a. 10(2) (ri-b) -4 prolli.to.
The as~ company owned a fleet of bmes and carried
on the business of transport. The income-tax offiett disallowed development rebate on the transport vehicles owned
by the company as provided by the second proviso to s. 10(2)
(vi-b) of the Income-tax Act. The company challenged the
section on the ground that the said provbo offends Art. 14 In
that it discriminates between machinery which is ofrICe applianc.,. or road transport vehicl.,. and other kinds of machinery.
lleld, that there is nothing in the Constitution which
prevents the Legislature from choo.ing the objects of taxation
from amonll"t vaiious classes of machinery for purpose of
giving development rebate.
OIUGINAL JuruenrCTION: Petition No. 143 of
1961.
Petition under Art. 32 or the Constitution of
India for the enforcement of Fundamental rights.
S. Sunminathan and R. GopaJakri.,hnan, for the
petitioner.
K. N. Rajagopaki Sastri and P. D. Menon, for
the respondentAI.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
595
1962
1962. January 16. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
KAPUR, J.-This is a petition by the asaessee
under Art. 3:! of the Constitution challenging the
constitutionality of the second proviso to s. 10(2)
(vi-b) of Income tax Act introduced by The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act (28 of 1960). The
relevant section with the proviso is as follows :-
Sou"'4m RoadWt11•
p,;-Ltd.
S. 10(1) "The tax shall be payable by an
s,ssessee under the head "Profits and gains
of business, profession or vocation" in respect
of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him.
(2) Such profit• or uains shall be com·
puted after making the followin~ allowances,
namely:
............................................... ' ............ .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... .
(vi-b) in respect, of machinery or plant
being nPw, which has been installed after the
3 lst day of March, 1954, and which is wholly
used for the purposeR of the business carried
on by the assessee, a sum by way of development rebate in respect of the year of installation equivalent to twer.ty-five per cent of the
actual cost of such machinery or plant to
the assessee :
Provided that no allowance under this
clause shall be m'lde unless the particulars
prescribed for the purpose of clause (vi) have
been furnished by the assessee in respect of
such machinery or plant;
Provided further that no allowance under
this clause shall be made in respect of any
machinery or plant which consist of office
appliances or road transport vPhiclPs."
The petitioner is a limited company with its
registered office at ;\fadm·qi in the Rtate of llfadras
v.
Union of Ind i•
K¥UrJ.
1962
,%1dlu,. Bea·iwllJ' ..
PriNJI L1d.
v.
U11Um o/ lntlia
K•pur .J.
J!u;;t
5!16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1002) SUPP.
which owna a. fleet of buses a.nd lorries and carriell
on the business of transport
In res1wot of !IBRl'R~·
ment year I !!60-61 it cla.imoo a. development rPbate
on all its plants and machiner.v including buPines.q.
The Income tax Officer diHallowed tho olnim of
rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso
above quoted and computed the tax payable without such rebatfl.
ft was contonderl on behalf of
the petitioner that the proviso oft'cnrls Art. 14 in
that it discriminates betweon machinery which is
office appliance or road transport vehicl<'s and
other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept
such a contention because there is nothing in the
Constitution which prevents the legislBture from
r:hoosing thp, object of taxation from
11mong~t
various classes of machinery for the purpose of
giving d<'vefopment rebate. Tho Constitution rloes
not prohibit any sueh cla.ssifica.tion which has l>l'en
ma.de in the present case.
The petition is wholly without merit and is
thcr1Jforc dismiHSed a.nd the rule is discharged. The
p••titioncr will pny tho costi! of the respondent.
P1iifi(Jn d1'.'IT11i ... 'll'd.
P. V. RAGHAVA REDDI AND AXOTHER
v.
('0lJUIS810XER OF INCOME-TAX
( ll. P. S1~HA, C .. J., ,J. L. KAPt:a, M. HrnAYA·1..-1.1 .. w,
J. C. S11.\11 nncl .r. R. Mn.>1101.KAH, J.T.)
Nou-n ... i1/1111" f"IH1i/"111.1f·. ro111111i"si()11
d1tf' /u-ff1-rr:1•1-1! l1.11
/11rliut,fl1m 11111l 7r-tirl dir1cl/.11 ur tl1rfJu~1/I oll1P.1'-" "' th·· 11011.-1·,,,.;_
,/1 111 r'''"J"""!I --1/ ~lrtlflf(jr!J fllj,..1i,l-/1t1·r1111r, ;J 1'tr."i1.'r,/ in t,1.1·•111/1'
,,.,.,-itJJry--/111/ian /11rf1111•--fo.r:A.ct, 1922 (ll 11/ JC122),,.,.. 4(1J(t,),
·I! f)(r), 43.
The- appellant i\ a firn1 '"°·hich \\'as
~oin~ hu~incss ~11
mica.
To negotiate for ordrrs and I•• hancllc lt-s
other affa~r"
th<- appell..ant engaged a company in Japan ,vliich 1~ adn111tcdly a "non .. rtllii<lcnt" c<1mpany.
By agTr.c1ncnt l)ClWcr.n tl1c