https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339694 The Tribunal held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) lacked the authority to direct the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to decide the risk adjustment percentage, emphasizing that the DRP should independently evaluate the issue without involving the TPO. Regarding the selection of comparables for transfer pricing adjustments, the Tribunal supported the DRP's directive to include a particular comparable, instructing further examination without TPO involvement. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the DRP could call for reports but should independently decide matters without instructing further inquiries by the Assessing Officer or TPO. The decision emphasized the necessity of independent decision-making by the DRP under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339694 The Tribunal held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) lacked the authority to direct the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to decide the risk adjustment percentage, emphasizing that the DRP should independently evaluate the issue without involving the TPO. Regarding the selection of comparables for transfer pricing adjustments, the Tribunal supported the DRP's directive to include a particular comparable, instructing further examination without TPO involvement. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the DRP could call for reports but should independently decide matters without instructing further inquiries by the Assessing Officer or TPO. The decision emphasized the necessity of independent decision-making by the DRP under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339694