Locke, J.:—The question to be determined in the present matter is whether certain profits realized by the appellant in the taxation years 1946, 1947 and 1948 were income, within the meaning of that term as defined by subsection 1 of Section 3 of the

CAMERON, J.:—This is an appeal by the Minister of National Revenue from a decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board dated August 27, 1951 (4 Tax A.B.C. 397) which allowed the appeal of the respondent from its assessment to income tax for its fiscal

ARCHIBALD, J.:—This appeal is against an assessment for both income tax and excess profits tax made with respect to the taxable income for the period ending April 30, 1944, and confirmed by the Minister of National Revenue.

ARCHIBALD, J.:—The appellant was assessed for income and excess profits tax for the year 1945 and appealed from said assessment, which said appeal was disallowed by the Minister and the appellant duly served and filed his notice of dissastis- faction from the

CAMERON, J.:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board dated January 9, 1951, whereby the appellants’ appeals to that Board from assessments to income taxes for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 were disallowed.

CASGRAIN, J.S.C.:—Le demandeur est marié sous le régime de la communauté de biens. Comme ascendant, en qualité d’héritier et à titre de chef de la communauté, il réclame au défendeur la somme de $9612, pour dommages-intérêts résultant de la mort de son

FERGUSON, J.:—This is an appeal under Section 32 of The Succession Duty Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 378, by Edith Mae Thompson, residuary legatee under the will of Daniel Harris Williams, from the decision of the ‘Treasurer of Ontario with

CAMERON, J.:—In the matter of the appeal by the Minister of National Revenue, appellant, and the Lakeview Golf Club Limited, respondent, this is an appeal by the Minister of National Revenue from a decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board, dated November

ARCHIBALD, J.:—This appeal was heard in Vancouver and the evidence and argument submitted were identically the same as that submitted in the appeal of the Army & Navy Department Store Limited v. The Minister of

ARCHIBALD, J.:—This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, at the same time the appeal in Army & Navy Department Store (Western) Limited was heard. The two appeals involve exactly the same question and the only evidence taken was a brief statement