https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39569 Additional wealth-tax on urban assets was constitutionally valid because urban and non-urban assets form distinct classes with differing return-generating capacity and capital-appreciation potential. A differential tax classification satisfies Article 14 where it rests on an intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus to the statutory object; no unequal or arbitrary treatment within the urban-asset class was established. Wealth-tax applies to aggregate net wealth rather than individual assets, so lack of income from a particular asset does not make the levy confiscatory. The additional levy was neither excessive in a constitutional sense nor violative of Article 19(1)(f). en-us Wed, 26 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:56:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39569 Additional wealth-tax on urban assets was constitutionally valid because urban and non-urban assets form distinct classes with differing return-generating capacity and capital-appreciation potential. A differential tax classification satisfies Article 14 where it rests on an intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus to the statutory object; no unequal or arbitrary treatment within the urban-asset class was established. Wealth-tax applies to aggregate net wealth rather than individual assets, so lack of income from a particular asset does not make the levy confiscatory. The additional levy was neither excessive in a constitutional sense nor violative of Article 19(1)(f). Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39569