https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49465 The second proviso to section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which denied development rebate for office appliances and road transport vehicles, was upheld as a valid classification under Article 14. The Court held that the Legislature has wide competence to select the subject of taxation and to differentiate among types of machinery for rebate purposes. Treating road transport vehicles differently from other machinery was not hostile discrimination but a permissible legislative classification. The constitutional challenge under Article 14 failed, and the Article 32 petition was dismissed. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:58:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49465 The second proviso to section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which denied development rebate for office appliances and road transport vehicles, was upheld as a valid classification under Article 14. The Court held that the Legislature has wide competence to select the subject of taxation and to differentiate among types of machinery for rebate purposes. Treating road transport vehicles differently from other machinery was not hostile discrimination but a permissible legislative classification. The constitutional challenge under Article 14 failed, and the Article 32 petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49465