Walsh, J:—Two motions for dismissal of oppositions made by the respective opposants came on for hearing and were heard simultaneously. The Minister of National Revenue obtained judgment against defendant for amounts withheld by it from employees by virtue of
Pratte, J:—This section 28 application is directed against a decision of the Tax Review Board dismissing an application pursuant to section 167 of the Income Tax Act, 1970-71-72, c 63, for an order extending the time for filing
Heald, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division allowing the respondent’s appeal with respect to his 1977 taxation year from a reassessment of penalty made pursuant to subsection 163(1) of the Income Tax Act, RSC
Smith, DJ:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff, by way of trial de novo from the decision of the Tax Review Board, which allowed the defendant’s appeal from a reassessment of her income by the Minister of National Revenue for
Le Dain, J:—The section 28 application must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that a requirement for information or documents issued under subsection 231(3) of the Income Tax Act, SC 1970-71-72, c 63. is
Le Dain, J:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division which dismissed applications for certiorari and an action for a declaration challenging the validity of requirements for information under subsection 231(3) of the Income
Urie, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tariff Board rendered on August 26, 1980. The appeal was heard together with a section 28 application brought by the appellant herein against the same decision of the Tariff Board under Court
Cattanach, J:—These are appeals by the plaintiff from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated April 15, 1976 whereby the assessments of the plaintiff to income tax for his 1971 and 1972 taxation years were confirmed.
Addy, J:—The issue in this income tax appeal involves the manner by which losses of previous years could properly be taken into account for the plaintiff’s 1974 taxation year. Neither the facts nor the figures are disputed but merely the manner of
Walsh, J:—Two motions were brought on in this matter, one being plaintiff’s motion to delete paragraph 8 of its statement of claim, to amend paragraph 12 by substituting for “Hogg Robinson” the words “Hogg Robinson Group Ltd (herein “Hogg Robinson”) and
