https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16633 The court held that the embezzled amount by the agent should not be excluded in computing capital gains. The court rejected the assessee's argument to deduct the embezzled amount, emphasizing that the entire sale amount should be considered. Despite references to commercial practice principles and interpretations of the Income-tax Act, the court ruled that the embezzled amount did not qualify for deduction under Section 48. The loss was deemed to be incurred as the owner of the property, not in the course of business operations. The Tribunal's decision was upheld against the assessee. en-us Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:22:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16633 The court held that the embezzled amount by the agent should not be excluded in computing capital gains. The court rejected the assessee's argument to deduct the embezzled amount, emphasizing that the entire sale amount should be considered. Despite references to commercial practice principles and interpretations of the Income-tax Act, the court ruled that the embezzled amount did not qualify for deduction under Section 48. The loss was deemed to be incurred as the owner of the property, not in the course of business operations. The Tribunal's decision was upheld against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16633