https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235986 The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for adopting a flawed methodology in computing the value of the IP, deviating from the approved method. It directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to adhere to the original valuation method and include marketing expenses for accurate future cash flow estimation. The TPO was instructed to follow the original method without introducing new concepts and ensure consistency in calculations. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on the Assessing Officer (AO) and the importance of providing the assessee with an opportunity to appeal. The appeal was partly allowed, dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition and Stay Petition as infructuous. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235986 The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for adopting a flawed methodology in computing the value of the IP, deviating from the approved method. It directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to adhere to the original valuation method and include marketing expenses for accurate future cash flow estimation. The TPO was instructed to follow the original method without introducing new concepts and ensure consistency in calculations. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on the Assessing Officer (AO) and the importance of providing the assessee with an opportunity to appeal. The appeal was partly allowed, dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition and Stay Petition as infructuous. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235986