Supreme Court of India
SOUTHERN ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- 16 January 1962
- Judges listed
- BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 594 · 1962 INSC 6
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
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 :-
p. 595
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.
p. 595
(2) Such profit• or uains shall be com· puted after making the followin~ allowances, namely: ............................................... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
p. 595
(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 :
p. 595
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;
p. 595
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."
p. 595
The petitioner is a limited company with its registered office at ;\fadm·qi in the Rtate of llfadras 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.
pp. 595–596
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.
p. 596
P1iifi(Jn 'll'd. P. V. RAGHAVA REDDI AND AXOTHER
p. 596
v.
p. 596
('0lJUIS810XER OF INCOME-TAX
p. 596
ll. P. S1~HA, C .. J., ,J. L. KAPt:a, M. HrnAYA·1..-1.1 .. w, J. C. nncl .r. R. J.T.)
p. 596
tl1rfJu~1/I ~lrtlflf(jr!J ;J (ll ~oin~ hu~incss ~11
p. 596
affa~r" 1~
p. 596