Dubinsky, DJ:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board and from the order based thereon dated July 27, 1976, whereby it dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff herein from assessments made for the taxation years of 1972 and

Mahoney, J:—The defendant’s contract with Canada Post Office for the conveyance of mail on the service designated ‘‘Combined Urban Service” at Winnipeg, Manitoba was terminated by the Postmaster General upon completion. of the required services March 31, 1972.

The Chief Justice (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from assessments under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1968 and 1969 taxation

Walsh, J:—These proceedings concern the tax assessment of plaintiff for its 1973 taxation year and the interpretation to be given to section 125.1 of the Income Tax Act and Regulations 5200 and 5202 made by virtue thereof.

Urie, J (per curiam):—For the reasons given in Court No A-254-74, Charles Chaffey v MNR, [p 253], the appeal will be dismissed with costs.

Le Dain, J (concurred in by Urie, J and MacKay, DJ):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from a reassessment by the respondent in respect of the 1968 taxation year whereby a loss claimed as a

The Chief Justice:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division allowing an appeal from an assessment for gift tax based on what is described in the assessment as “inadequate considerations”, in respect of shares “sold” by the

Decary, J:—Three causes for action have been joined in this matter: Charles and David Malka, plaintiffs, have each lodged an appeal for having been assessed each on his part of a profit derived from an alleged adventure in the nature of trade

Walsh, J:—This is an action by appellant against an assessment dated February 28, 1977, in which the Minister of National Revenue did not take into account interest payable to the estate Felix Goyer in reimbursing the sum of $87,445.45 of overpaid

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Le Dain, J and Hyde, DJ) (judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from reassessments of the appellant under Part I of the