https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79021 The ITAT held that the property was actually leased out during the relevant period, rejecting the AO/CIT(A)'s view based on suspicion. The law requires evidence, not just suspicion. Even if the property was vacant for the entire year, Section 23(1)(c) applies as long as it was leased out for any part of the previous year. The AO's interpretation contradicted the clear wording of the provision. Since the property was let out for a period and vacant for the rest of the year, Section 23(1)(c) applies. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the AO to allow the benefit of Section 23(1)(c) in both assessment years. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2024 07:56:10 +0530 Tue, 02 Jul 2024 07:56:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79021 The ITAT held that the property was actually leased out during the relevant period, rejecting the AO/CIT(A)'s view based on suspicion. The law requires evidence, not just suspicion. Even if the property was vacant for the entire year, Section 23(1)(c) applies as long as it was leased out for any part of the previous year. The AO's interpretation contradicted the clear wording of the provision. Since the property was let out for a period and vacant for the rest of the year, Section 23(1)(c) applies. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the AO to allow the benefit of Section 23(1)(c) in both assessment years. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 02 Jul 2024 07:56:10 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79021