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

CORRIGENDUM Per Pramod Kumar, VP: Order u/s. 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed in the instant appeal on 25.11.2019. 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. 1 at para 2 (in last line) of page 1 (of para 2) of the order, the word ‘assessee’ be read as “Revenue” On page no. 3 at sub-para 3 (in 1st line) of the order, the word ‘assessee’ be 2) read as “Revenue” On page 3 at sub-para 4 (in 5th line) of the order, the amount ‘US $ 15,91,520’ 3) be read as “US $ 25,86,853”. On page 3 at sub-para 4 (in 12th line) of the order, the following has been 3) mentioned: ‘It was submitted by the assessee that RJ-S, being fiscally domiciled in India, is eligible to the benefits...............’ The same should be read as :

Assessment Year: 2018-19 ACIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. Page 2 of 3

“It was submitted by the assessee that RJ-S, being fiscally domiciled in Singapore, is eligible to the benefits...............” On page 4 (at 31st line) of the order, the word ‘KJIPL’ be read as “RJIPL” 4) On page 10 at sub-para 10 (in 2nd, 3rd and 16h line) of the order, ‘section 5) 9(1)(vii)’ be read as “section 9(1)(vi)” 6) On page 12 at sub-para 13 (last line) of the order, ‘[i.e. Section 9(1)(v)’ be read as “[i.e. Section 9(1)(vi)]”