CAMERON, Deputy Judge:—This case has to do with four appeals from assessment made in respect of the Appellant’s income for the years 1938, 1939 and 1940, dated Mareh 17, 1942, and in respect of the income for 1941, dated November 19, 1943.
O’Connor, J.:—The appellant appeals from assessments issued by the respondent for the years 1926 to 1929, both inclusive.
CAMERON, Deputy JUDGE:—This is an appeal from an assessment dated February 5, 1944, made in respect of the Appellant’s income for the year 1941. Notice of Appeal is dated March 4, 1944, and on September 26, 1944, the Minister, by his decision, affirmed
ROBERTSON, C.J.O.:—This is an appeal, by way of Stated Case, from the decision of Judge Macdonell, of the County Court of the County of York, delivered on 27th July, 1945, whereby he confirmed the assessment of the appellant in respect of the sum of
Cameron, DEPUTY Judge:—This is an appeal from an income tax assessment, dated June 16, 1944, in respect of the Appellant’s income for 1941. The taxpayer gave notice of appeal on July 6, 1944, and on September 22, 1944, the Minister of National Revenue
THORSON J.:—The appellant carries on the business of gold mining. In the income tax assessment levied against it for the years 1929, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1936 and 1937 certain disbursements and expenses made and incurred by it were disallowed as deductions
RINFRET C.J.C.:—Montreal Locomotive Works, Ltd., His Majesty the King, in right of Canada, and the City of Montreal have joined in submitting to the Courts questions of law upon facts admitted pursuant to art. 509 of the Code of Civil
NOTES DU JUGE St-Jacques: — Le jugement de la Cour supérieure a donné lieu à trois appels, dont l’un de la part de la Couronne, l’autre de la Cité de Montréal, et l’appel principal est par la Montreal Locomotive Works Limited.
SIDNEY SMITH (Deputy Judge) : The controversy in this appeal falls within a very narrow compass: the conclusions I have reached and my reasons therefor may be stated with corresponding brevity.
MCPHERSON, C.J.M.:—The respondent company was incorporated under the Dominion Companies Act and is licensed to do business in Manitoba. Its head office is in the Province of Ontario, in which province the manufacture of its product (chewing
