Heald, J:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Tax Review Board dated June 26, 1972 wherein the defendant’s appeal was allowed in respect of the assessment for income tax made by the Minister of National Revenue for the

Thurlow, J (concurred in by Ryan, J and Sheppard, DJ—judgment delivered from the Bench):—The question raised by this appeal is whether an amount of $100,000 which the appellant received in its 1967 taxation year from Jackson Brothers Logging Company Limited was

The Chief Justice (concurred in by Mackay and Sweet, DJJ—judgment delivered from the Bench):—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing an appeal from the appellant’s assessments under Part I of the Income

Thurlow, J (concurred in by Ryan, J):—This appeal is from a judgment of the Trial Division which dismissed the appellant’s appeal from reassessments of income tax for the years 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967. The question at issue with respect to all

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