https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65896 In estate duty commentary, a later incidental remark in a Supreme Court decision was treated as a casual observation because it was not necessary to the final determination of includibility of insurance proceeds, and therefore did not form the binding ratio decidendi or true obiter dicta. The text also explains that a Tribunal order based on a High Court view later reversed by the Supreme Court can disclose a mistake apparent from the record and be rectifiable under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act. On that basis, the nominee's insurance amount was treated as not includible in the deceased's estate and not liable to estate duty. en-us Wed, 27 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:31:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65896 In estate duty commentary, a later incidental remark in a Supreme Court decision was treated as a casual observation because it was not necessary to the final determination of includibility of insurance proceeds, and therefore did not form the binding ratio decidendi or true obiter dicta. The text also explains that a Tribunal order based on a High Court view later reversed by the Supreme Court can disclose a mistake apparent from the record and be rectifiable under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act. On that basis, the nominee's insurance amount was treated as not includible in the deceased's estate and not liable to estate duty. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65896