Held that the method of the assessee could have been categorised as the ”other method” provided in rule 10AB read with section 92C(1), and this would have been the most appropriate method in the peculiar facts of the assessee. The ”other method” would have been a good substitute for the comparable uncontrolled price as there was a lack of reliable comparables, and considering the fact that the royalty payments were made for unique intangibles, the Transfer Pricing Officer could have been directed to adopt the ”other method” as the most appropriate method. However, the working given by the assessee would have to be examined afresh by identifying the costs and profits attributable to the manufacture and sales to the non-associated enterprises and finding out the appropriate allocation of the costs and what could have been the profits on account of royalty that could have been stated to be attributable on account of royalty. The assessee is  directed to substitute the working on the basis of the other method.(AY.2014-15)