Summarize the following court judgment. n No. 143 of 1961. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental rights. section Swaminathan and R. Gopalakrishnan	 for the petitioner. K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and P. D. Menon	 for the respondents. 595 1962. January 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR	J. This is a petition by the assessee under article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the second proviso to section 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: section 10(1) "The tax shall be payable by an assessee 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 profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances	 namely: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vi b) in respect of machinery or plant being new	 which has been installed after the 31st day of March	 1954	 and which is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee	 a sum by way of development rebate in respect of the year of installation equivalent to twenty five per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant to the assessee : Provided that no allowance under this clause shall be made 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 vehicles. " The petitioner is a limited company with its registered office at Madurai in the State of Madras 596 which owns a fleet of buses and lorries and carries on the business of transport In respect of assessment year 1960 61 it claimed a development rebate on all its plants and machinery including business. The Income tax Officer disallowed the claim of rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso above quoted and computed the tax payable without such rebate. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso offends article 14 in that it discriminates between machinery which is office appliance or road transport vehicles and other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept such a contention because there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the legislature from choosing the object of taxation from amongst various classes of machinery for the purpose of giving development rebate. The Constitution does not prohibit any such classification which has been made in the pressnt case. The petition is wholly without merit and is therefore dismissed and the rule is discharged. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent. Petition dismissed.

The assessee company owned a fleet of buses and carried on the business of transport. The income tax officer disallowed development rebate on the transport vehicles owned by the company as provided by the second proviso to section 10(2) (vi b) of the Income tax Act. The company challenged the section on the ground that the said proviso offends article 14 in that it discriminates between machinery which is office appliances or road transport vehicles and other kinds of machinery. ^ Held	 that there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the Legislature from choosing the objects of taxation from amongst various classes of machinery for purpose of giving development rebate.