S.H. Kapadia, J.
1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1973-74 :
'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gross dividend declared by the companies in Ceylon was chargeable to tax and not the net amount after deducting the tax at source and the cost of foreign exchange entitlement certificate ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the travel allowance received by the applicant from Scindia Investments Pvt. Ltd., was not exempt in terms of Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'
2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, both learned counsel for the parties state that the controversy involved in this question is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Mrs. Meherbai N. Sethna v. CAT : 209ITR453(Bom) . Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
3. As regards question No. 2 reproduced hereinabove, we mention at the very outset that on going through the order passed by the authorities below, we feel that this question pertains to daily allowance received by the assessee. In the circumstances, question No. 2 should be read as referring to daily allowance and not the travel allowance. In the present matter, the Tribunal has observed that the head office of Scindia Investments Private Limited, is situated at Bombay and the assessee is ordinarily a resident of Gwalior, and as such he was coming from Gwalior for performing duties of his office as director at Bombay. In view of the Explanation to Section 10(14), the assessee in this case cannot claim exemption in respect of allowance received by him for performing his duties as director in office at Bombay. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's claim for exemption in terms of Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
4. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.