https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277101 Schedule rules for excess profits tax cannot widen the charging provision beyond the Act's definition of "business"; where a banking company's rental receipts do not satisfy the proviso to Section 2(5), Rule 4(4) of Schedule I cannot bring those receipts into charge. The retrospective explanation inserted into Section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was also held not to offend Article 372(1), because that Article preserves existing law until amended by a competent Legislature and does not bar retrospective amendment. The result was that the excess profits tax contention failed, while the validity of the retrospective income-tax amendment was upheld. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:22:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277101 Schedule rules for excess profits tax cannot widen the charging provision beyond the Act's definition of "business"; where a banking company's rental receipts do not satisfy the proviso to Section 2(5), Rule 4(4) of Schedule I cannot bring those receipts into charge. The retrospective explanation inserted into Section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was also held not to offend Article 372(1), because that Article preserves existing law until amended by a competent Legislature and does not bar retrospective amendment. The result was that the excess profits tax contention failed, while the validity of the retrospective income-tax amendment was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jun 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277101