Judgment :- VENKATASWAMI J. At the instance of the assessee, the following four questions were referred by the Tribunal to this court "(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on Turf Invitation Cup is not allowable ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the subscription received from the members is liable to tax ? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on the Race Ball Day is in the nature of entertainment expenditure ? (4) Whether the Tribunal was right in denying the development rebate on air-conditioner ?" On the first question, the amount disallowed was in a sum of Rs. 44, 328. The Tribunal, after an elaborate discussion regarding the expenditure, found that it was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee that such expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. It appears that the said sum of Rs. 44, 328 was spent at the time of conducting the Turf Invitation Cup. In that connection, the assessee invited members from other clubs and spent the amount on the members who had come from other clubs. The Tribunal, negativing the claim of the assessee that the expenditure was in connection with the business, held that the expenditure has no direct or indirect link with the business of the assessee. We have no valid reason to disagree with the finding of fact rendered by the Tribunal as above Regarding the second question, learned counsel fairly admitted that in respect of the very same assessee, the question was answered against the assessee in the judgment of this court in CIT v. Madras Race Club Regarding the third question which relates to a sum of Rs. 24, 911 representing the expenditure incurred in connection with Race Ball Day, it is the case of the assessee that the said expenditure was incurred towards dinner and other expenses for the members in the restaurant. The nature of the expenditure itself shows that it was only an entertainment and such entertainment expenses are not allowable under section 37(2B). The Tri bunal was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the expenses, being entertainment in nature, cannot be allowedThe last question relates to development rebate in respect of air conditioners and fans. The nature of the expenditure itself shows that it was only an entertainment and such entertainment expenses are not allowable under section 37(2B). The Tri bunal was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the expenses, being entertainment in nature, cannot be allowedThe last question relates to development rebate in respect of air conditioners and fans. Here again, the Tribunal has followed its earlier decision in respect of the very same assessee, which was not challenged by the assessee. The Tribunal has held that a club house is either office premises or a residence and section 33(6) of the Act prohibits the grant of development rebate in respect of machinery or plant installed in any office premises or residential accommodation, and, therefore, develop ment rebate will not be admissible. Here again, we do not find any ground to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal concurring with the order of the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner In the result, all the questions are answered in the negative (sic) and against the assessee with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.