https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14066 Deduction under section 80J(4) depended on proof that the assessee employed the requisite minimum number of workers. On the admitted facts, the regular workforce was below the statutory threshold, and persons engaged on a piece-rate basis for fabricating, dyeing, printing and embroidery were not shown to be employees. They worked independently and also for others, so there was no factual basis to treat them as workers employed by the assessee for the provision. The deduction was therefore unavailable, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:12:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14066 Deduction under section 80J(4) depended on proof that the assessee employed the requisite minimum number of workers. On the admitted facts, the regular workforce was below the statutory threshold, and persons engaged on a piece-rate basis for fabricating, dyeing, printing and embroidery were not shown to be employees. They worked independently and also for others, so there was no factual basis to treat them as workers employed by the assessee for the provision. The deduction was therefore unavailable, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14066