Assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of dental products and trading activity constituted about 95 per cent of business and remaining 5 per cent was from manufacturing activity, mere fact that assessee had relied on TNMM in its transfer pricing report would not in any way preclude Tribunal from adopting RPM as MAM under section 92C, to benchmark transaction of assessee. Court also held that tax authorities as well as assessee are not precluded by positions taken in returns, documents or accounts and have duty (and a corresponding right) to apply correct legal principle and, thus, use of one method in a transfer pricing report does not estop assessee from later claiming that another method is most appropriate one, provided that is indeed correct position. (AY. 2002-03)