Cattanach, J:—These are appeals by the plaintiff from its assessments to income tax by the Minister of National Revenue under the Income Tax Act in respect to the laintiff's 1968 and 1969 taxation years.
Urie, J:—These appeals are from decisions of the Tax Appeal Board dismissing the appellants’ appeals from their reassessments under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1964 taxation year. By consent the appeals were heard
Urie, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated May 30, 1972 whereby an appeal by the appellant from its reassessment for the taxation year 1969 in which the respondent disallowed the appellant’s deduction for losses
Gibson, J:—The appellant appeals from reassessments for income tax for his taxation years 1967 and 1968. The appellant claimed he was entitled to deduct losses from his horse racing business from income he received from another source. The Minister reassessed
The Chief Justice:—We are all of opinion that the motion to quash should be granted with costs. And this is the judgment of the Court.
Heald, J:—This is an appeal from a reassessment by the respondent of the appellant for the taxation years 1960 to 1967 inclusive, involving gains realized from the sale of real estate located in Canada.
Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Review Board whereby it was held that a gain of $545,570 realized by the respondent on the sale of land was not a profit from an adventure or concern in the nature of trade within the
Bastin, DJ (judgment delivered from the Bench, per curiam):—This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division dismissing the appeal of the appellant from a notice of reassessment in respect of the 1965 taxation year. The appeal
Pratte, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board allowing an appeal from the reassessments of the defendant’s income tax for the 1965, 1966 and 1967 taxation years. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the defendant is
The Chief Justice (judgment delivered from the Bench, per curiam):— In these two appeals the question is whether the Trial Division erred in upholding assessments, under Part I of the Income Tax Act, of
