K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.) (Supreme Court)
Cash in bank is conceptually different from cash in hand. It is not permissible for the Revenue to withdraw money from the attached bank accounts. However, as the order u/s 132B was not challenged, no relief given. Directions given for deposit of seized moneys in fixed deposit.

Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT (P & H High Court) (Full Bench)
While damages or penalty which are compensatory in nature are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act, damages which are penal in nature and in respect of infraction of law are not allowable as a business expenditure. Amounts paid by way of damages for a contractual breach is a normal incident of business and allowable as a deduction.

Baldev Singh Kanwar vs. CIT (1997) ITR 640 overruled.

CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H High Court) (Full Bench)
(i) In considering whether the interest paid by an assessee on loans raised for acquisition of new asset, before the same was first put to use, is to be added towards the cost of the asset or the same is to be granted as a revenue expenditure for the reason that the assessee was already in business, the provisions of s 36 (1)(iii) cannot be read in isolation but have to be read with s. 43 (1). DCIT vs. Core Healthcare 251 ITR 61 (Guj) dissented from;

(ii) S. 36(1)(iii) does not confer a deduction orrowed for the purposes of setting up a new unit even in the case of an assessee already in business. Deduction for interest on capital borrowed can be allowed only after the asset is first put to use and starts generating income;

(iii) It is implicit from Expl. 8 to s. 43(1), which provides that interest payable after the asset is put to use shall not be added to the actual cost, that interest payable before the asset is put to use has to be added to the actual cost;

(iv) In conformity with law and accounting principles, interest paid on capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset has to capitalized and cannot be allowed as a revenue deduction till the asset is put to use. There is no distinction between capital borrowed for the setting up of a new business and the expansion of an existing business;

(v) The Proviso to s. 36(1)(iii) inserted by the Finance Act 2003 is to 'curb tax avoidance' and is merely clarificatory