Heald, J:—This is an appeal against that part only of the judgment of the Trial Division wherein it was held that the appellant .. is not entitled to exclude from its 1968 taxable income the sum of $227,171 being the net amount of

Jerome, ACJ:—This action, although in the form of a trial is, pursuant to the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148, section 172, an appeal from the decision of the Tax Review Board [1979] CTC 2388; 79 DTC 314. The head-note

Jerome, ACJ:—This action is brought by the plaintiff in accordance with section 172 of the Income Tax Act as an appeal from the reassessment by the Minister of National Revenue of the capital cost allowances to which the

Collier, J:—This appeal arises under the “old” Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 1-48, as amended to and including 1971. The taxation year under consideration is 1971.

There are two issues:

Smith, D J:—This is an appeal by a taxpayer from the decision of the Tax Review Board dated July 4, 1979, dismissing the taxpayer’s appeal from the assessment for income tax of his income for the taxation year 1977.

Dubé, J:—The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the sum of $52,000 — $50,000 plus $2,000 being the value of a 1974 automobile — given to the plaintiff following his dismissal constitutes non-taxable damage as claimed by him, or

Collier, J:—This is an application by Romeo’s Place Victoria Ltd, Romeo’s Pizza & Steak House (Duncan) Ltd, Romeo’s Pizza & Steak House Ltd, Mil- los Development Ltd, Romeo’s Holdings Ltd, Juliette Enterprises Ltd, Dimitrios Mavrikos, Steven Mavrikos, and

Grant, D J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff in respect of the reassessment dated February 18, 1975 made by the Minister wherein additional tax in the sum of $17,383.40 was levied in respect of income for the 1967 taxation year,

Cattanach, J:—These are six appeals from assessments to income tax made by the Minister of National Revenue for the fiscal and taxation years of each of the three plaintiffs ending December 15, 1971 and April 30, 1972 which six appeals were heard

Grant, DJ:—Mr Erlichman, I am prepared to find in this case that the plaintiff in this matter was probably lured into this purchase by the action of his partner who had been rather successful in his previous attempts and that by reason of