OUIMET, J. ;—The Court, seized of the appeal against a judgment rendered by his Honour Judge T.-A. Fontaine, of the Court of Sessions of the Peace, on February 25, 1958, and a sentence imposed on March 26, 1958, upon charges arising out of the

THORSON, P. :—Il s’agit ici d’une demande d’une ordonnance autorisant la production d’une opposition à jugement à l’encontre d’un certificat fait sous le régime de l’article de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu, S.R.C. 1952, chapitre

KEARNEY, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board, 20 Tax A.B.C. 247, dated August 27, 1958 wherein the re-assessment made by the Minister under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, in respect of the

DUMOULIN, J.:—Il s’agit d’un appel interjeté d’une décision de la Commission d’appel de l’impôt sur le revenu, datée le 18 août 1960, 25 Tax A.B.C. 65, confirmant une cotisation du 10 décembre 1958, qui établissait une taxe de $87.18 sur le revenu

THURLOW, J.:—This is an appeal from an assessment of income tax for the year 1956. In its fiscal period which ended in that year the appellant realized a substantial profit on the sale of a parcel of land which it owned and in making the assessment

THorson, P.:—This is an appeal from the decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board, sub nom. No. 661 v. M.N.R. (1959-60), 23 Tax A.B.C. 46, dated October 16, 1959, dismissing the appellant’s appeal against his income assessments

MARTLAND, J.:—On June 1, 1956, Nathan Adilman, of Saskatoon, then 67 years of age, entered into a written agreement with Edison Wholesale Ltd., a Saskatchewan corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Edison’’), whereby he transferred to Edison 72 common shares in the capital stock of a company known as Adilman’s Limited and three lots, and the building situated thereon, in the City of Saskatoon.

THURLOW, J.:—This is an appeal from a re-assessment of income tax for the year 1956, the issue between the parties being whether the whole of a sum of $100,000 received by the appellant from Doulton & Co. Limited in that year following the termination of an agency relationship was income from the appellant’s business. The appellant admits that $5,000 of the amount in question was income but contends that the remainder of it was capital.

THURLOW, J.:—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Tax Appeal Board by which appeals by the appellant from re-assess- ments of income tax for the years 1952 and 1953 were allowed in part. There is also a cross-appeal by which the Minister seeks to

KEARNEY, J.:—This is an appeal taken by the Minister from a decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board, 25 Tax A.B.C. 97, whereby the respondent’s appeal against a re-assessment made by the Minister under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c.