Urie, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division wherein the appeal of the appellant from a reassessment for income tax by the Minister of National Revenue was allowed and the re-assessment was referred back to the Minister on

Marceau, J:—La présente action a été jointe à celle portant le N° T-2464-77, entre Clément Alepin et Sa Majesté la Reine. La demanderesse ici conteste la cotisation d’impôt que le ministre du Revenu national a émise contre feu Joseph Alepin en incluant dans le revenu de ce dernier, pour l’année d’imposition 1970, une somme de $93,702.12 qu’il aurait reçue au cours de l’année à titre d’intérêts.

Marceau, J:—A la présente action a été jointe celle portant le N T-4258-77, entre Dame Afife Kurdi-Alepin, Jean Alepin et Dieudonné Alepin agissant en leur qualité d’exécuteurs testamentaires de la succession Joseph Alepin et Sa Majesté la Reine.

Gibson, J:—The plaintiff, Coopers & Lybrand Limited, after September 24, 1976 caused to be paid to the employees of Venus Electric Limited the net salaries and wages accrued due owing to them for the two-week period ending September 24, 1976. The

Gibson, J:—Johns-Manville Canada Inc appeals from three assessments for each of the taxation years 1969 and 1970 disallowing a deduction of $2,758,670 in the computation of its income. This amount of money was expended by Johns-Manville acquiring land adjacent

Urie, J:—The issue in this appeal is whether the Tariff Board was right in declaring that the generators in issue were not exempt from consumption or sales tax under the exempting provisions of paragraph 1(a) of Part XIII of the Excise

Gibson, J:—This action and four others were heard on common evidence.* [1] Actions T-4586-77 and T-4587-77 relate to the 1973 and 1974 taxation years of the plaintiff and actions T-4588-77, T-4970-77 and T-4971-77 relate to the 1973,

Walsh, J:—There is one principal issue and two subsidiary issues to be decided in the present case which concerns reassessments to plaintiff’s personal income for the years 1969,1970 and 1971. The principal issue concerns the question of whether he should

Addy, J:—The plaintiff appeals his income tax assessment for the 1971 taxation year. The part of the assessment in issue before me pertains to a Capital cost allowance of $11,243.40 which the plaintiff claimed as a limited partner entitled to a

Mahoney, J:—The plaintiff disputes inclusion in its 1973 income tax assessment of the entire $441,860.61 gain realized on the sale of a parcel of real estate owned by it. The plaintiff has reported a taxable capital gain on the disposition in the