Walsh, J:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board dated March 25, 1977, dismissing plaintiff’s appeal from an income tax assessment for its 1973 taxation year. In assessing plaintiff the Minister of National Revenue had included in

Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated October 15, 1976 in which it was held that the plaintiff, Leonard Mendels was not entitled to deduct an amount of $10,000 in computing his income for his 1970

Le Dain, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board, which dismissed the appellant’s appeal from an assessment for income tax in respect of the 1965 taxation

Collier, J:—This appeal was heard on common evidence with another appeal: The Queen v Harry J Perkins (T-462-77).

Urie, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing with costs an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Appeal Board, which Board had allowed appeals from re-assessments of the appellant under Part I of the Income

The Chief Justice:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing with costs an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Review Board dismissing an appeal in respect of: assessments under ‘Part I of the Income Tax

Collier, J:—The Plaintiff for the 1975 taxation year, filed a return in which he computed his income in accordance with section 114 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148, as amended by SC 1970-71-72, c 63 and further

Heald, J (concurred in by Ryan, J and Kelly DJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing the appeal of the appellant from an income tax assessment for the taxation year 1972, wherein income tax in the sum of

The Associate Chief Justice:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board which allowed the defendant’s appeal from an assessment of income tax for the year 1973. The issue is whether the defendant is entitled, in computing

Heald, J (concurred in by Urie, J and MacKay, DJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division in which the learned trial judge held that the respondent, as represented by the Minister of National