The Chief Justice (concurred in by Lacroix and Mackay, DJJ—judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing with costs an “appeal” from a reassessment of the appellant’s tax under Part I of the Income

Owen, JA:—This is an appeal from part of a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, September 14, 1972, on a stated case under Article 448 CP, by the executors of and the residuary beneficiaries under the will of the late E

Heald, J:—The plaintiff carries on, inter alia, the business of manufacturing and selling aluminum and aluminum products. It is a fully Integrated aluminum company. Aluminum is made from alumina (the oxide of aluminum) by means of a

Walsh, J:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dated April 16, 1971 maintaining the appeal by respondents from an assessment by the Minister of National Revenue dated January 31, 1968 in which tax in the amount of

Thurlow, J (all concur):—This is an appeal from an order of the Trial Division refusing an application for judgment on the basis of admissions contained in the pleadings. The proceeding in the Trial Division is an appeal by the Crown from a judgment of the

Per curiam:—This is an application in writing under Rule 324 for a consent judgment, the effect of which consent judgment would be that the judgment of the Trial Division would be set aside and there would be a judgment of this Court whereby the appellant’s

Cattanach, J:—This is an appeal by the Minister of National Revenue from a decision of the Tax Review Board dated April 10, 1972 whereby an appeal by the respondent herein from its assessments to income tax for its 1966 and 1967 taxation years ending

Jackett, CJ (judgment delivered from the Bench—all concurring):— This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division by which an appeal by the respondent from its reassessment under Part I of the Income Tax Act for the 1967 taxation

Heald, J:—This is an appeal from income tax reassessments by the defendant of the plaintiff’s income tax returns for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968. By said reassessments, the defendant added to the plaintiff’s income the sum of $80,955.81,

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Thurlow, J):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing, with costs, an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeal Board dismissing an appeal from the appellant’s assessment under Part I