https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168815 The Urban Immovable Property Tax under Part VI of the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, as amended in 1939, was held to be a valid provincial levy because its essential character was a tax on lands and buildings within the provincial field; annual letting value was only the measure of assessment and did not convert it into a tax on income or on the capital value of assets. The challenge to the collection machinery was also held barred by section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935, once the levy itself was upheld, since the objection then went only to the mode of collection. The tax was therefore sustained as intra vires. en-us Wed, 27 Sep 1939 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:56:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168815 The Urban Immovable Property Tax under Part VI of the Bombay Finance Act, 1932, as amended in 1939, was held to be a valid provincial levy because its essential character was a tax on lands and buildings within the provincial field; annual letting value was only the measure of assessment and did not convert it into a tax on income or on the capital value of assets. The challenge to the collection machinery was also held barred by section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935, once the levy itself was upheld, since the objection then went only to the mode of collection. The tax was therefore sustained as intra vires. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 27 Sep 1939 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168815