Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Hyderabad v. Open Text Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue appealed the Tribunal’s 28 March 2018 order in ITA 232/Hyd/2016 for AY 2011-12. The respondent was Open Text Corporation India, into which Cordys Software India had merged.

Source: PDF pp.1–2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court referred to Circular 9/2024 amending Circular 5/2024 and recorded the High Court monetary limit as Rs.2 crore. The tax effect in this appeal was well below that limit.

Source: PDF p.3

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The departmental appeal was dismissed under Circular 9/2024. If it falls within an exception in Circular 5/2024, the Department may seek revival.

Source: PDF p.3

4. OUTCOME

ITTA 269/2019 was dismissed without costs, subject to the express revival liberty; pending miscellaneous petitions were closed. No substantive assessment issue was determined.

Source: PDF p.3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

The exception reservation qualifies closure

Unlike an unqualified statement that the dispute is permanently over, paragraph 5 expressly allows the Department to seek revival if a Circular 5/2024 exception applies. That is permission to seek revival, not an automatic reopening or a finding that an exception already exists.

Source: PDF p.3

Monetary disposal is not endorsement of the tax reasoning

The order identifies the Tribunal appeal and AY 2011-12 but gives no analysis of the disputed adjustment. Its practical value is evidence of the Revenue appeal’s disposition and the reservation attached to it. Substantive reliance requires the Tribunal order rather than an inferred High Court ratio.

Source: PDF pp.2–3

Retain the assessment and corporate identities

The source expressly links Cordys Software India with Open Text through merger. That caption explains the respondent’s identity; it does not decide a jurisdictional challenge based on merger. The stated Rs.2 crore limit belongs to the circular discussion in this order and is not a verification of current filing policy.

Source: PDF pp.1–3