" MA No 81 2025 Open Text Technologies India P Ltd Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Įी ͪवजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया, लेखा सदè य क े सम¢ । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member M.A. No.81/Hyd/2025 (आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.2387/Hyd/2018) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad. PAN:AABCV9961D Vs. Dy.CIT Circle 16(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Adv. D. Prabhakar Reddy राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 14/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Miscellaneous Application (“MA”) is filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) seeking rectification of the order of this Tribunal passed in ITA No.2387/Hyd/2018 for the assessment year 2014–15 dated 05.05.2025. The assessee contends that an apparent mistake has Printed from counselvise.com MA No 81 2025 Open Text Technologies India P Ltd Page 2 of 6 crept into the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring recall of the same. 2. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) invited our attention to para no. 16 of the Tribunal’s order wherein the Tribunal has adjudicated the issue arising out of ground no.10 of the assessee’s appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that ground no.10(c) and ground no.10(d) were not specifically adjudicated by the Tribunal and, therefore, an apparent mistake exists in the impugned order. It was argued that the Tribunal may rectify the said mistake by adjudicating upon the issues raised under clauses (c) and (d) of ground no.10. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the Tribunal has already adjudicated the entire controversy arising out of ground no.10, as is evident from para nos. 16 to 16.2 of the impugned order. Therefore, no mistake apparent from the record exists. Further placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (440 ITR 01), the Ld. DR submitted that what the assessee seeks is a review of the Tribunal’s decision, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we have gone through Printed from counselvise.com MA No 81 2025 Open Text Technologies India P Ltd Page 3 of 6 ground no.10 of the assessee raised during the appellate proceedings which is to the following effect: “10. Making TP adjustment and accordingly imputing interest on outstanding receivables as on March 31st 2014 relating to provision of software services to AEs : a) Not appreciating that the instant transaction is not covered in the definition of international transaction as defined u/s 92B of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. b) Not appreciating the facts and circumstances surrounding the receivables and re-characterizing the outstanding receivables as unsecured loans advanced to AEs. c) Not appreciating the fact that under TNMM, the impact of outstanding receivables on the working capital adjustments have already been taken into account in determining the arm's length margin hence there is no need of imputing interest on outstanding receivables again. d) Not appreciating the fact that the receivables are consequential/ closely linked to the principle transaction of provision of IT services and hence have been aggregated for determination of ALP under TNMM. e) Without prejudice to the above, not netting off the outstanding payable of Rs. 23,19,05,520 against outstanding receivables from its AE while determining the interest amount. 5. On perusal of the above, we find that the core issue arising under ground no.10 of the assessee’s appeal was the contention that interest on outstanding trade receivables does not constitute a separate international transaction requiring independent benchmarking, and in the alternative the assessee raised objections under clauses (a) to (e), including clauses (c) and (d). In para nos. 16 to 16.2of the impugned order, this Tribunal has categorically rejected the assessee’s contention and held that interest on outstanding trade receivables constitutes an Printed from counselvise.com MA No 81 2025 Open Text Technologies India P Ltd Page 4 of 6 independent international transaction requiring separate benchmarking. Once the main issue itself has been decided against the assessee, the alternate objections in clauses (c) and (d) stand automatically rejected. Thus, in our considered view, there is no mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the para nos. 16 to 16.2 of the impugned order is reproduced as under: “16. Ground No.10 of the assessee are related to the benchmarking of interest on outstanding trade receivables. The Ld. AR contended that no separate benchmarking is required in respect of interest on trade receivables, as the same forms part of the working capital and is subsumed within the overall pricing of the international transaction. 16.1 Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed this contention and submitted that interest on trade receivables constitutes an independent international transaction, which requires separate benchmarking. In support, the Ld. DR relied on the Explanation inserted to Section 92B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002. The said Explanation clarifies that international transactions shall include capital financing, including receivables, loans, and any other debt arising during the course of business. 16.2 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material available on record in view of the submissions made by either side. In light of the settled legal position, including the statutory amendment to Section 92B of the Act, we are unable to accept the contention of the Ld. AR that no separate benchmarking is required for outstanding receivables. Accordingly, we hold that the interest on trade receivables constitutes a separate international transaction requiring independent benchmarking, and thus, the assessee’s ground on this issue is liable to be rejected. “ 6. Further, on Suo motu verification of the impugned order, we find that in para no. 7 of the order, the Tribunal has inadvertently mentioned ground no.10 instead of ground no.12. Printed from counselvise.com MA No 81 2025 Open Text Technologies India P Ltd Page 5 of 6 This is a mere clerical error, which requires rectification. Accordingly, para no. 7 of the impugned order shall be read as follows: “7. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that they are not pressing ground Nos.1 to 3, 6, 7, 9 and 12 of the grounds of appeal and ground nos.14 to 16 are consequential in nature. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that these grounds do not need separate adjudication. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 14 to 16 of the grounds of appeal are dismissed being not pressed.” 7. Except for the above clerical correction, we find no merit in the M.A. The substantive plea of the assessee seeking adjudication of clauses (c) and (d) of ground no.10 is in the nature of a review, which is outside the scope of section 254(2) of the Act in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (Supra). 8. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed, except to the limited extent of correcting the clerical error in para no. 7 of the impugned order as noted hereinabove. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 19th November, 2025 Vinodan/sps Printed from counselvise.com MA No 81 2025 Open Text Technologies India P Ltd Page 6 of 6 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 M/s. Open Text Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Unit – 301, 3rd Floor, Building No.14, Mindspace, IT Park, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081 2 Dy. CIT, Circle 16(2), Hyderabad 3 Director of Income Tax (IT & TP) Hyderabad 3 DRP Bengaluru 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "