ACIT (IT) -4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD., MUMBAI

Order u/s. 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed in the instant appeal on 15.11.2019. However, it has been subsequently pointed out by the assessee that certain errors have crept in this order. There are indeed inadvertent typographical errors in the order which are being rectified as follows:

1) On page no. 2 at para 3 (first line) of the order, the word ‘assessee’ be read as “Revenue”

2) On page 3 at para 4 (fourth line) of the order, the amount ‘US $ 15,91,520’ be read as “US $ 25,86,853”.

3) On page 3 at para 4 (eighth line) of the order, the following has been mentioned:

‘It was submitted by the assessee that RJ-S, being fiscally domiciled in India, is eligible to the benefits...............’ to 6334/Mum/2018 ACIT Vs. Reliance JioInfocomm Ltd Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 2 of 3 The same should be read as :

“It was submitted by the assessee that RJ-S, being fiscally domiciled in Singapore, is eligible to the benefits...............” On page 4 (at 14th line) of the order, the word ‘KJIPL’ be read as “RJIPL” 4) On page 9 at para 10 (in 1st and 10th line) of the order, ‘section 9(1)(vii)’ be 5) read as “section 9(1)(vi)”

6) On page 11 at para 13 (last line) of the order, ‘[i.e. Section 9(1)(v)’ be read as “[i.e. Section 9(1)(vi)]”