B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ. ( 1 ) UNDER Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following two questions : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 12,000 spent on messing (Rasoi) could not be called expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37 (2b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? ( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals view that the disallowance of messing expenses amounting to Rs. 12,000 under Section 37 (2b) of the income-tax Act, 1961, was not justified, is correct in law ? "2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on a business in purchase and sale of kirana items and also as a commission agent in foodgrains. ( 3 ) DURING the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed deduction in a sum of Rs. 17,105 on account of providing messing for the various constituents. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the same. On appeal, the disallowance was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal, however, the Tribunal dissected the said amount into two sub-items, one of rs. 5,105 being the expenditure incurred on the partners and the other (remaining amount) spent on providing messing to the constituents. The Tribunal disallowed the sum of Rs. 5,105 but allowed the other amount holding that since messing expenditure is not in the nature of entertainment expenses, it cannot be disallowed by virtue of Sub-section (2b) of Section 37, sub-section (2b) of Section 37 reads as follows : "notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no allowance shall be made in respect of expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure incurred within India by any assessee after the 28th day of February, 1970. ( 4 ) THE assessment year concerned herein is the assessment year 1972-73. The said sub-section has been construed and pronounced upon by a Full Bench of this court in Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 265. The Full Bench has construed the words "in the nature of entertainment expenditure" in a wide sense and held that every type of expenditure, be it modest or frugal, will fall within the said sub-section. It held that whatever be the amount of entertainment expenditure, it would be subject to the stringent rule contained in the aforesaid sub-section. The Full Bench has construed the words "in the nature of entertainment expenditure" in a wide sense and held that every type of expenditure, be it modest or frugal, will fall within the said sub-section. It held that whatever be the amount of entertainment expenditure, it would be subject to the stringent rule contained in the aforesaid sub-section. We may mention in this behalf that there has been a good amount of divergence of opinion among several courts in India, but so far as our court is concerned, the above view has been taken and it is binding upon us. ( 5 ) FOLLOWING the Full Bench decision, the question referred is answered in the negative, i. e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. .